StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Drooling Iguana wrote:No idea, but I never implied that I know what should come next.

Yet you seem to think that a massive revolution is what is required for a new generation of consoles. An event that happened once, just once, in how many generations of consoles? 5? 6?

The PS1 couldn't do full 3D without some serious trade-offs. I mean, seriously, did you ever play games like Soul Reaver or the original Medal of Honor? Great games, to be sure, but you couldn't see your hand in front of your face the draw distance was so bad. The PS2 allowed full 3D games to be made well enough to easily suspend disbelief. The PS3 just lets people make PS2 games slightly shinier.

The double standard here is amazing. "PS1 had crap 3D graphics, PS2 graphics are much better! PS3 isn't as awesome, it sucks!" The fact of the matter is that numerous PS2 games could have been made for the PS1, with longer load times and a graphics hit, which is the same argument you make for why the PS3 sucks. The fact that you want to idealize the PS2 is worthless. The big reason the PS3 is a disappointment is the lying, the delays, the PRICE, etc. But hey, that's okay, not a big boost in graphics. Never mind that you're going from 480 to 1080 in resolution, there's virtually NO change whatsoever, right?

Who's expecting a revolution? I'm just explaining why the current generation really isn't worth the upgrade.

...because they don't massively increase graphics like the previous generation did, an opinion, by the way, which is moderately disproven by the facts. While PS3 didn't match the specs Sony promised, they are still considerably higher than the stats for the PS2, and if you look at a HD game on a HD screen, you will notice a considerable increase in graphics.

Your biggest point of contention is that if a game could be made for a previous system (if you neuter it), then the new system doesn't deserve to exist. Several of the games that came out in the first year for PS2 fit that bill to the letter. Most of the better looking games didn't come out until much later in the system's lifespan, as the game developers learned how to eke out more juice from the console's hardware.

Now, granted, PS3's creation is a failure on multiple levels, and the lifespan of the PS2 isn't quite that of the PS1, but the specs for the PS3 are significantly improved from the PS2 to justify its existance in some small way. The fact that Sony is full of fucking idiots in marketing, R&D, manufacturing, and of course corperate leadership helps towards destroying whatever coolness the PS3 could have had. Had Sony seen the marketing trends coming and started development on the PS3 sooner, we would have seen a much tighter competition between Microsoft and Sony.

And none of the new systems bring us any significant distance closer to any of these things.

And shock, neither do computers, which almost always lead the way in just about every aspect. Here's a hint: when looking for innovation in consoles, look first to computers. However, as technology advances, new machines must be built. HD systems are the "next big thing", businesses would be stupid not to get things out as quickly as they could. Consoles are no different. Microsoft got a head start. Wii didn't bother and went on to other things. Playstation got caught sleeping and rushed together what they could as fast as they could. It's like that kid who is told the day before a project is due that he HAS a project, and scrambles to finish it before the deadline. Had Sony let the Xbox 360 gain a two or three year lead, they would potentially be dead in the water. I look at this the same way I look at Voodoo graphics when Nvidia came to town. They were so sure of their superiority that when Nvidia started making better cards, they couldn't keep up. They figured they had mastered 3d graphics and were resting on their laurels. The PS3 is a failure, not because it doesn't have the technical power, but because everything leading up to it was so horribly wrong.

If it means paying $600 for a new console and having the typical price of new games jump up for the first time since the move to optical media, yes.

The cost of developing games went up too. The more shiney a game is, the more art people they had slaving over tablets, and thus, the more they need to be paid. Ever wondered why independent games tend to look shittier than the ones made by big companies? The PS3 was a huge fuckup, mostly caused by the fact that Sony was caught with its pants down.

Why try for another revolution? Why not just let the march of technology allow us to increase the depth and polish of games with their current graphical quality while lowering the prices? Without having to worry about constant graphical one-upmanship game developers would have to start dirrerentiating their offerings based on, horror of horrors, gameplay!

Well, there is the fact that better graphics tend to sell more games. People can be awfully superficial about such things. It's sad, I know, but what are you going to do? Simpler games also seem to appeal to a larger number of people: it's easier to get someone to play smash brothers than the latest Tekken where the guy who knows the stats for all the characters AND the super-special combos and death moves and cheap tricks will be facing the guy who just picked up the controller. Much as people LOVE games like Operation Flashpoint, there are many, many more people who would rather play Counterstrike. It's also why more people would rather play Starcraft than, say, Medieval 2: Total War. It's why space sims are pretty much a dead genre in the United States while The Sims and WoW rake in more money than god.

So there you have it, shiny, simple games sell. And while those are selling, the developers have enough money left over to let some of the dev teams make the games they WANT to make. Sometimes. Occasionally.

See that games of 2007 thread? See if you can spot how many games are being made by people who left Blizzard.

Uraniun235 wrote:What should Microsoft have done to curry more development of more and better games for the 360?

Bought Capcom.

Capcom seems to be developing for 360 above all others at the moment, and making DAMN FINE games while they are at ti.

weemadando wrote:Capcom seems to be developing for 360 above all others at the moment, and making DAMN FINE games while they are at ti.

Exactly. Get it while it's hot.

atg wrote:But don't you understand? The DS is a gimmik like the Wii! It's doomed to failure!

While the touch screen is pretty much a gimmick that can only be effectively used in a few types of games; and the second screen is more useful for displaying information (like a map, etc) the DS was massively more powerful than the GBA which preceeded it

I've heard that the GBA is about slightly more powerful than a SNES, while the DS is almost as powerful as a PS1.

I've heard that the GBA is about slightly more powerful than a SNES, while the DS is almost as powerful as a PS1.

The GBA was between the SNES and PS1 but focused almost exclusively on 2D graphics. The DS's specs are between those of the PS1 and N64.

MKSheppard wrote:While the touch screen is pretty much a gimmick that can only be effectively used in a few types of games; and the second screen is more useful for displaying information (like a map, etc) the DS was massively more powerful than the GBA which preceeded it

Well, no, the touchscreen isn't really a gimmick. It isn't used for main control in most games (except Metriod and Advance Wars) but it certainly makes secondary controls (inventory, menus, etc.) easier to work with.

phongn wrote:Well, no, the touchscreen isn't really a gimmick. It isn't used for main control in most games (except Metriod and Advance Wars) but it certainly makes secondary controls (inventory, menus, etc.) easier to work with.

It also allows games like Trauma Center to exist in the first place.

I can understand re: graphics from a developer end, but as a gamer from this point of view, I guess I'll lean towards gameplay in my choices. (Somehow a pair of Japanese wrestling games from 2004-2005 managed to > the latest WWE games.)

What was the original price of the PSX? I remember looking at it and going - wow i'd never pay that

The first japanese import were topping the equivalent of 500euros
The retail price of the euro model was 350-400 iirc

The PS1 launched in the US at $300 IIRC, and I considered that a major gyp because you had to buy a memory card separately and it only came with one controller and no games. The biggest console of the generation before it, on the other hand (and the only console I've ever bought when it was remotely new), cost $200 and came with 2 controllers and a game (Super Mario World). Still, $300 is a pretty good price for a new console. $400 is when you get into shaky territory, and $600 is when you've gone batshit insane.

When you consider that there are people who are ready to pay 600-700 euros to get a new graphics card in order to get a boost to their FPS in demanding games and at the same time be able to increase their settings in games, paying 600 dollars for a console can actually make sense to someone. When you yet consider the fact that the 700 euro GFX card will be top of the line for a year at best, you really have to stop and wonder what goes in peoples minds when they start spending these ludicrous sums.

Yeah, and you can get similar but slightly-lower performance for a third the price.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:When you consider that there are people who are ready to pay 600-700 euros to get a new graphics card in order to get a boost to their FPS in demanding games and at the same time be able to increase their settings in games, paying 600 dollars for a console can actually make sense to someone. When you yet consider the fact that the 700 euro GFX card will be top of the line for a year at best, you really have to stop and wonder what goes in peoples minds when they start spending these ludicrous sums.

In theory, one can work using a medium to high end card and last 1-1.5 years. That costs 150-200 USD. So.. that is way more affordable isn't it? Moreover, you don't really need lots of CPU power these days, contrary to what the processor companies been telling you.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:When you consider that there are people who are ready to pay 600-700 euros to get a new graphics card in order to get a boost to their FPS in demanding games and at the same time be able to increase their settings in games, paying 600 dollars for a console can actually make sense to someone. When you yet consider the fact that the 700 euro GFX card will be top of the line for a year at best, you really have to stop and wonder what goes in peoples minds when they start spending these ludicrous sums.

In theory, one can work using a medium to high end card and last 1-1.5 years. That costs 150-200 USD. So.. that is way more affordable isn't it? Moreover, you don't really need lots of CPU power these days, contrary to what the processor companies been telling you.

Quite true, a philosophy that I fully endorse when I rebuild my comp. My 7900GT cost me 300 euros when I bought it earlier this year, and Im quite happy with it.

But anyway, if we consider the fact that a console is supposed to serve you for several years before a faster console comes around, spending 600USD on a console IMO isnt nearly as ludicrous as buying a 700USD GFX card that will be remarkably behind the leading models in a year. Which doesnt mean that a 600 buck price-tag on a console wouldnt be insane. But it helps to put things in perspective.

But that's bullshit. Top-of-the-line cards don't drop off that quickly: the 7800 is old, but it's hardly struggling AT ALL with even the newest games. Indeed, these days it seems feature specs like shaders etc that kill your card rather than raw performance.

What kind of person constantly buys the retardedly-priced brand-new high-end cards you don't even need?

The same people who bought 360's and PS3's off eBay?

Stark wrote:But that's bullshit. Top-of-the-line cards don't drop off that quickly: the 7800 is old, but it's hardly struggling AT ALL with even the newest games. Indeed, these days it seems feature specs like shaders etc that kill your card rather than raw performance.

Which wasnt what I meant. What I meant was that the top of the line card costing 700 will be THE top of the line card for a relatively short period of time. Faster, better performing products will quickly take the top of the line position away. Ofcourse they still perform, but the newer cards will more often than not do it better. They wont be so much better that any sensible person could justify to him/her-self spending another 700 to buy these new cards, but luckily for Nvidia and ATI, not all computer gamers are sensible people.

What kind of person constantly buys the retardedly-priced brand-new high-end cards you don't even need?[

The kind of person who can say that he always has a top of the line computer. And these types arent too rare either, from what I have seen and heard in my line of business.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:

Stark wrote:What kind of person constantly buys the retardedly-priced brand-new high-end cards you don't even need?

The kind of person who can say that he always has a top of the line computer. And these types arent too rare either, from what I have seen and heard in my line of business.

The jist I get about serious(ly rich) consumers of performance PC products is that they're not a numerically impressive fraction of the whole PC market, but worth being catered to from a business perspective? Unequivocally yes.

nVidia and ATI have a whole range of products, and it makes sense for them to offer ultra high-end models at ridiculous prices. First, having the fastest video card money can buy in your stable makes people think better of your mid-ranged offerings. Second, those are high-margin cards, so you're making a lot on each one even though you're selling many times as many mid-ranged and low-end cards.

Sony, on the other hand, has one product, and if they want to duplicate the PS3's success, they'll need to sell about 100 million of them. I don't know what the sales are on nVidia's new $450-$600 8800 series cards, but I bet they're well below the 1 million mark. nVidia can sell a few hundred thousand and consider that a rousing success. Sony doesn't have that luxury.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Which wasnt what I meant. What I meant was that the top of the line card costing 700 will be THE top of the line card for a relatively short period of time. Faster, better performing products will quickly take the top of the line position away. Ofcourse they still perform, but the newer cards will more often than not do it better. They wont be so much better that any sensible person could justify to him/her-self spending another 700 to buy these new cards, but luckily for Nvidia and ATI, not all computer gamers are sensible people.

So you're comparing 'console should serve for several years without replacement' to 'PC gamers must have the absolute newest, most overpriced card with the worst dollar:performance ratio'? Don't be retarded. The PS3 has a specline, and it's stuck with it - the alternative for PC owners is NOT buying cutting-edge cards every year. By your own logic, the PS3's hardware has *already* lost it's 'cutting edge'ness, so surely PS3 owners should upgrade? Or are you full of shit and you could buy a midrange card now and do just fine for years, JUST LIKE A CONSOLE?

The kind of person who can say that he always has a top of the line computer. And these types arent too rare either, from what I have seen and heard in my line of business.

Wow, worthless anecdotal evidence. I guess that's why sales of ultra-expensive novelty cards at the absolute highend dwarf that of the midrange cards? No? Wow, you're saying there's no spread of PS3 models to satisfy different parts of the market, but just one they're trying to sell to everyone?

By the way, I bet NOBODY in G&C has EVER worked in 'your line of business', oh no.

Stark wrote:So you're comparing 'console should serve for several years without replacement' to 'PC gamers must have the absolute newest, most overpriced card with the worst dollar:performance ratio'? Don't be retarded. The PS3 has a specline, and it's stuck with it - the alternative for PC owners is NOT buying cutting-edge cards every year. By your own logic, the PS3's hardware has *already* lost it's 'cutting edge'ness, so surely PS3 owners should upgrade? Or are you full of shit and you could buy a midrange card now and do just fine for years, JUST LIKE A CONSOLE?

You can be certain that a top of the line card will be below or at mid-range two years after you've bought it, which in turn means that you would need to tone down on newest games in order to be able to actually play them. A console on the other hand is supposed to keep its edge for significantly longer.

Seriously though, fuck it. My original goddamn point was to say that there are quite a few idiots that DO want to buy the new insanely priced high-end GFX card each year. Buying a console in the same price range that you cant, or wont have to change for years to come isnt remotely as silly.

Wow, worthless anecdotal evidence. I guess that's why sales of ultra-expensive novelty cards at the absolute highend dwarf that of the midrange cards? No? Wow, you're saying there's no spread of PS3 models to satisfy different parts of the market, but just one they're trying to sell to everyone?

By the way, I bet NOBODY in G&C has EVER worked in 'your line of business', oh no.

What the fuck are you smoking seriously? Perhaps I should have provided my fucking pay day check from the computer store I work at so that you wouldnt have to start jumping at my face for not making it clear enough for you? All Im saying you dumbass is that at work (dum dum dum at the computer store) there are plenty of boneheads who always want the high-end crap. The console buyer who always wants the new console wont be going to buy one every year.

Add another smiley, it will increase your penis size and grow your ego. Judging by your need to vent on somebody adding their short two cents to the discussion, you seriously need it.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:You can be certain that a top of the line card will be below or at mid-range two years after you've bought it, which in turn means that you would need to tone down on newest games in order to be able to actually play them. A console on the other hand is supposed to keep its edge for significantly longer.

Nonsense. Consoles have historically been graphically slaughtered by PC's 2-3 years after their release. Even games that are considered graphically strong on some consoles would be considered awful on any PC. Also, until 1080p TV's were released, PC's often had to push far more pixels simply because standard definition sets have a piddling resolution compared with even decent monitors.

Seriously though, fuck it. My original goddamn point was to say that there are quite a few idiots that DO want to buy the new insanely priced high-end GFX card each year. Buying a console in the same price range that you cant, or wont have to change for years to come isnt remotely as silly.

It is if you expect to continue to receive top-end graphics, particularly since the last generation of consoles and this generation of consoles would be considered obsolete technically within one year of their release.

What the fuck are you smoking seriously? Perhaps I should have provided my fucking pay day check from the computer store I work at so that you wouldnt have to start jumping at my face for not making it clear enough for you? All Im saying you dumbass is that at work (dum dum dum at the computer store) there are plenty of boneheads who always want the high-end crap. The console buyer who always wants the new console wont be going to buy one every year.

That's because consoles aren't released every year and so their performance only improves every 5-6 years. But in any case, you seem to be objectively wrong, since many people have purchased a 360 only to "replace" it with a PS3... one year later.

Stark wrote:Or are you full of shit and you could buy a midrange card now and do just fine for years, JUST LIKE A CONSOLE?

There is a slight difference. Consoles nowadays are expected to last roughly five years. It's generous to give PC hardware three, to remain able to use all the new shiny things you're looking at an upgrade every 18 months to at least a mid range part somewhere in the system. Also, because consoles are a fixed platform, there's more incentive to squeeze the existing spec line for all it's worth, whereas on a PC the incentive is to use the latest whizzy new feature of the latest card just to say that you do, and let older hardware turn bits off.

It's telling to make real world comparisons. Between 1995 and 1998, the Playstation had progressed from the original Tekken to Tekken 3 on the same hardware. In a similar timeframe, the PC had gone from Terminator: Future Shock to Half-Life, but the minimum system requirements had tripled (and you really needed that new add-in card).

You could keep it more current by comparing Tekken Tag with Soul Calibur 3 (probably the single best graphics on the PS2, but pays for it with huge load times), and then looking at a 2000 and a 2005 PC 3D heavy game, and the machines they could have run on. I doubt a PC that was built in 2000 could run a 2005 game with any playable performance.