Edited 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: Do you think next gen consoles are really needed? (222 votes)

Yes 87%
No 10%
Results 2%

For all intents and purposes, let's pretend the whole business side of things doesn't exist for a moment. For creative purposes, are the next generation of consoles really worth it in your opinion? Do they add anything substantial other than better hardware?

#2 Edited by John1912 (1862 posts) -

Has any console ever added anything more then better hardware? Of course they are needed. New hardware is 90% of games progressing. Everything other then a core console has been a fad, there have been no real improvement over top of a controller and a console going back to the Atari.

#3 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19331 posts) -

YES

Developers have said MULTIPLE statements about how better hardware will help for the future.

#4 Edited by Zeik (2396 posts) -

I still think there's plenty of room for creative and interesting games on current gen consoles, but it's clear developers are already pushing the current hardware to its limits. I'm kind of two minds on this. I don't expect or want current gen consoles to die as soon as the next gen comes out, but these consoles are definitely starting to feel dated in their design. I feel these new consoles are needed less for the new pretty graphics and more just for general hardware design improvements. I like my PS3, but it's undoubtedly going to be better for everyone that the PS4 uses easy to use PC compatible hardware.

Besides, even if I don't end up picking up a next gen console right away, the sooner these new consoles are out the quicker they can build up a library of games to make them worth buying.

#5 Edited by PsychoPenguin (163 posts) -


Do they add anything substantial other than better hardware?

That's the entire point of new consoles!

#6 Edited by shinjin977 (756 posts) -

This is a gaming website. Gamers are more likely than not tech heads. We don't need new gen console. We WANT it.

#7 Posted by TheDuke (231 posts) -

I'm liking the more open world games. I as well am hoping this means cities won't be so barren and more realistic random city-goers. It won't be apparent until the games come out, but better animations (movement, facial) and compounded with the little things like better reflections, shadows, particles and what-not will increase immersion and make it easier for developers to make more emotionally impactful characters. My favorite genre are RPG games and the main thing I dislike is how all the big capitol type cities are real barren in terms of population or the NPCs are all just plain static. I'm liking the continuing trend of adding RPG elements to other genres. I'm not sure how much new hardware will help enhance that but stronger hardware probably helps with having more dynamic characters and worlds.

#8 Posted by DarthOrange (3858 posts) -

Do birds poop on cars?

#9 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4203 posts) -

Do birds poop on cars?

Don't cars deserve it?

#10 Posted by BigBoss1911 (2437 posts) -

Do bears shit in the woods?

Online
#11 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

Better tools are always good for creativity: Better hardware equals better software tools which equals better games. Studios can self impose restrictions or aim at certain visual fidelity at will.

When most of newly released phones are more powerful than current 360 and PS3, you know you need new consoles.

#12 Edited by StrainedEyes (1324 posts) -

Yes. We've definitely hit the walls of what the PS3 and 360 are capable of.

#13 Edited by mikey87144 (1741 posts) -

Here is an answer to your question. Dust off your PS2 and play a couple of games that came out on it. You'll notice very quickly that it wasn't just graphics that improved with new hardware. Things that we take for granted now were unheard of then. Two years from now when people stop trying to just make the prettiest things and go for more nuance you'll again see why new hardware is necessary.

#14 Posted by believer258 (11819 posts) -

Yes, definitely. It seems like most AAA games released these days run about as smoothly as an old car on a dirt road after a tornado.

New hardware provides for more than just better graphics. It also allows developers to fit more and more things into their games, which in turn make them more and more varied and interesting. Crysis 1 had a hard time running on consoles because its levels are so damn big, and even then they cut out one whole level. Compare this to RAGE, a game that ran at 60 frames per second but one where the actual levels where all of the actual fighting is happening is pretty fucking cramped for the most part. Also look at something like Far Cry 3 on consoles, a game that illustrates my simile above perfectly. And then look at Skyrim. Logically, the Empire probably shouldn't give a damn about that place - it's mostly barren! There are some small towns dotting the landscape, but there's absolutely nothing in the game that feels as big or as populated as some of the cities in Oblivion and even those are smaller than they should be.

This is all due to hardware limitations. With better hardware, Skyrim could have had massive, well-populated cities that actually come across as cities, and Crysis 2 wouldn't have had to sacrifice those large levels of the first game just so it could run decently. Better hardware allows developers to, at least in theory, more easily develop their games (also potentially lowering costs, but I doubt that). It's just a better tool in general. It's like the difference between using a rusty old set of cheap tools and a brand-new set of the best you can buy.

Online
#15 Posted by Belegorm (399 posts) -

Uh... anyone else feel that the whole point of the thread is: "I can play all the latest games at better graphics/with more people on my PC so what's the point of a console?" When it comes down to it you're probably going to save more money in the long run as a PC gamer, so why play on inferior hardware (consoles)?

#16 Posted by JasonR86 (9659 posts) -

Yeah. The current generation has reached a technological cliff and publishers are losing a lot of money using the same old business models.

#17 Edited by shivermetimbers (768 posts) -

My answer is yes as well. I think they are needed for multiple reasons. My reasons don't just stem from better hardware though. I'm mostly thinking from a creative standpoint. They'll bring better creative muscle and better interactive experiences.

I'm just curious if the answer is no, why someone would think that way.

#18 Edited by Nephrahim (1136 posts) -

No because a gaming PC accomplishes it without all the fuss.

That said, I can't imagine why people would continue playing games on 360 and PS3 these days. They look so bad compared to PC games.

#19 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (3859 posts) -

I don't think you can discount 'better hardware' as a reason when the medium is so incredibly dependant on that hardware. And it's not just better graphics, when you have machines that are more powerful you can do more with them, better AI, bigger more immersive worlds, better simulations. You just have more horsepower to play with. I'm not saying higher tech games = better games but I'd rather devs have more space to play.

#20 Posted by mrpandaman (864 posts) -
#21 Posted by djou (874 posts) -

After sitting through the 2 minutes load times for the disc version of Last of Us, yes, a million times yes.

#22 Edited by briangodsoe (487 posts) -

Yeah to drive down the price of current Gen so I can play the games I missed out on.

#23 Edited by Zeik (2396 posts) -

No because a gaming PC accomplishes it without all the fuss.

That said, I can't imagine why people would continue playing games on 360 and PS3 these days. They look so bad compared to PC games.

Because not everyone has a comparable computer? Also exclusives.

#24 Edited by Patman99 (1580 posts) -

Do birds poop on cars?

Do bears shit in the woods?

Do.... uhhh.... babies shit their pants?

#25 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

Absolutely.

Better graphics, more robust physics, larger scaled environments, seamless open worlds, consoles actually designed for digital downloads instead of being brute forced onto the systems, all the social stuff.

In the PS4's case making it significantly easier to program for making it easier for developers so you'll get more games and higher quality ones that run better.

#26 Posted by GamingMichael (105 posts) -

The additional RAM should help the overall feel of the console. The PS3 had 512 MB (256 MB for games and 256 MB OS) of RAM which is very limiting for the progression of games. The unified memory pool on the PS4 will allow developers to allocate that to wherever the game will most benefit.

#27 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@belegorm said:

Uh... anyone else feel that the whole point of the thread is: "I can play all the latest games at better graphics/with more people on my PC so what's the point of a console?" When it comes down to it you're probably going to save more money in the long run as a PC gamer, so why play on inferior hardware (consoles)?

Pro-PC agenda aside, new consoles means better games for the PC in the long run as both XBONE and PS4 architecture is supposedly more similar to PCs. Meaning that port should be of higher quality across the board and the additional RAM in the new consoles will mean stock textures in ports won't look like complete garbage anymore.

#28 Posted by mrfluke (5131 posts) -

yep

#29 Posted by mrfluke (5131 posts) -

The additional RAM should help the overall feel of the console. The PS3 had 512 MB (256 MB for games and 256 MB OS) of RAM which is very limiting for the progression of games. The unified memory pool on the PS4 will allow developers to allocate that to wherever the game will most benefit.

holy shit really? huh, im a lot more optimistic about remote play capabilities on ps4 being fantastic now.

#30 Posted by tourgen (4478 posts) -

What? No! I hate progress too! I want my Folgers from a can and my gas with lead in it!

#31 Posted by ShaggE (6429 posts) -

No because a gaming PC accomplishes it without all the fuss.

That said, I can't imagine why people would continue playing games on 360 and PS3 these days. They look so bad compared to PC games.

When all games are available on PC, then you'll have a point. Until then, that's why people have consoles.

#32 Edited by leebmx (2239 posts) -

Does the pope shit in the woods....?

In the glorious future where we all have PC's maybe not. But even then, I think people will want a powerful machine which is just for playing games, with no extra hassles.

We really need these machines, not so much for graphics but for bigger worlds , better AI and larger online communities/games.

EDIT: and hair tech...

#33 Edited by MegaLombax (387 posts) -

I believe that with better hardware, there's a bigger avenue to be creative with games.

#34 Edited by nintendork666 (203 posts) -

Duh. It's been like 8 years, right?

#35 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

If you say no, you are a fucking crazy person.

#36 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Absolutely. Unless you believe the 360 and PS3 are the equivalent of the Holodeck/Matrix and that videogames have thusly already peaked - which would make you a madman.

#37 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

P.S. the very fact that this exact poll/topic comes up with an eerie regularity since 2007 or whenever GiantBomb got started, should be proof enough, that new hardware cycles are pertinent to videogame culture - and always will be.

#38 Posted by Yadilie (380 posts) -

Obviously. Sony really needed to change the architecture of their console to become more in-line with everything else. The fact they were able to switch to x86 means developers won't have an excuse anymore like "THE CELL IS TOO HARD ; ;" and make their console even stronger in terms of power is great.

Also, until a console/PC has the inward power to do proper AI there will always be improvements needed and always be a new generation. Graphics arn't the only reason for having more powerful chipsets. AI is a huge thing.

#39 Edited by Hunter5024 (5640 posts) -

I think we've hit a ceiling in this generation that's more noticeable then it has ever been before. As Ryan said earlier on, there have been so many different features bolted onto these consoles throughout their life that simply building new ones with those features better integrated would almost be worth it alone.

#40 Posted by Otleaz (45 posts) -

I have no intention of buying a console, but I still feel they need to come out with new ones so my games stop being held back by the current shitty hardware that they have.

#41 Edited by JoeyRavn (4970 posts) -

If you mean "needed" as in "the current hardware is nigh obsolete and it wasn't even that good to begin with", then yes. They are very much needed.

If you mean "needed" as in "I want to play a superior version of these games!", then no. I have a PC.

#42 Edited by PenguinDust (12499 posts) -

No because a gaming PC accomplishes it without all the fuss.

That said, I can't imagine why people would continue playing games on 360 and PS3 these days. They look so bad compared to PC games.

So many games are designed from the ground up with console limitations in mind. New, more powerful consoles mean better PC games, too.

#43 Posted by Fearbeard (826 posts) -

Yes, I've pretty much abandoned console gaming right now because the consoles can barely handle what the developers are creating right now. If a game comes out on PC right now then that's where I'll pick it up.

New hardware doesn't just mean better graphics. It means more computational power for everything.

#44 Edited by Castiel (2580 posts) -

OP seems to forget that better hardware also means more creative freedom. Stronger hardware = more possibilities.