What percentage of your (console) game time is spent on games too advanced for prior generations?

Avatar image for bigsocrates
Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) 7 months, 19 days ago

Poll: What percentage of your (console) game time is spent on games too advanced for prior generations? (87 votes)

0-20% 7%
21-40% 6%
41-60% 10%
61-80% 25%
81-100% 22%
I am a PC only player and I do not understand your peasant talk of "generations." Mine is a glorious continuum of increasing POWER! 18%
Good try, Mark Cerny, but I see through your attempt to get me to admit that the only games I play are Knack and Knack II: The ReKnackening. I ain't answering this poll and giving you the satisfaction! ... ... SatisKnacktion 11%

As I write this it's 2019 and there's talk of a next generation of consoles in the air. While this is something I'd normally find exciting, right now I'm pretty lukewarm on the idea. It's not just because the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X have made it so that games look much better than they did in 2013 when those consoles launched; it's also that there are fewer and fewer AAA games that actually use the hardware being released these days. A much greater amount of my time is spent playing Indie games than it was at the end of the last hardware generation, and I don't think that's true of only me. While Xbox Live Arcade generally released 2-3 games per week, now there are dozens of indie games released across the platforms every week, and most of those are simple 2-D games, with very few indies showing the kind of graphical complexity of a Shadow Complex or Bastion.

Because I'm spending so much time playing games that the 360 or PS3 could have handled, I don't really feel a strong need more power in my consoles than I have now. It would be nice if everything ran in true 4K, and the PSVR (which I have) could seriously benefit from a second generation with higher definition and the power to drive it, but Spider-Man looked great on my PS4 pro, and I don't think that these boxes are quite showing their ages yet. I'd rather get a few more years of games made by people who have mastered the current hardware than go through the awkward growing stages you get with a new console generation (as much as people praise PS4 exclusives now do you remember the launch of that system? It was not a good lineup, and arguably Infamous Second Son was the only major AAA exclusive until Bloodborne, 1.5 years later.

So I'm wondering what percentage of other people's time is being spent playing games that already don't take advantage of the hardware we have, rather than big budget games that tap the systems for all they are worth. Note that I'm not talking about relatively small enhancements like remasters that play in 4K or with a higher frame rate. Those are nice, but nobody spends $400 on a console just to play Burnout Paradise with enhanced textures.

Avatar image for shivermetimbers
#1 Edited by shivermetimbers (1721 posts) -

Honestly, I don't care if a game takes advantage of hardware so long as it's an overall good game. Hardware is what we throw away after a few years (if that), games are what we enjoy. Some people really like 4k billion FPS games, but I'd much rather spend money on games than spend them on things that allow them to have better lighting. I'll say that if these consoles aren't backwards compatible, I don't think the console industry is going to last much longer. People aren't going to buy $400-500 boxes every year or two just to play Halo 8.

As for how long I play games that take 'advantage' of the hardware, I probably play 50-50. I enjoy Night in the Woods and the AAA games, but mostly I stick to PC for that nowadays. It's more optimizing than taking advantage of the hardware. A game can run at 4k and bring the machine to its knees only for a better looking game to come along in 4k and not tax the hardware as much.

Avatar image for slag
#2 Posted by Slag (8165 posts) -

I doubt PUBG or many multiplayer games I play(ed) this gen could run on PS3/Xbox 360 powered devices, so I'd say a lot for me.

I definitely play a good number of retro and indie games too. While the title count of those played might be higher there than singleplayer AAA stuff I touch , the sheer number of hours I spend on MP is probably greater. Even if the current hardware isn't maximized by indie games, the speed of the interface and QoL feature improvements the PS4 hardware have over Ps3 easily makes it worth it to play indie/retro games on a PS4 versus a PS3.

So I figure about 75% for me.

Avatar image for tobbrobb
#3 Posted by TobbRobb (6591 posts) -

On consoles I'd say I spend a good amount of time playing demanding games. But that is primarily because I only use my consoles for exclusives, and a lot of my small/indie game time is spent on PC. PS4 has primarily been used for shit like Bloodborne, Persona 5, Red Dead 2 etc.

All that said I would prefer to wait as long as possible for a new generation. I want the purchase to feel like a leap in tech, because preferably I wouldn't have a console at all, and I already buy them a big begrudgingly.

Though I am curious what a next gen Playstation Gamepad would be like. If they iterate on the DS4 even more, then I'm pretty likely to want a few of those.

Avatar image for kmj2318
#4 Posted by kmj2318 (48 posts) -

81-100%, which isn't really a reflection of how much I care about graphics, just that games I like to spend a lot of time in happen to have great graphics because they are also the games that delight me in the overall presentation (story, voice acting, sound design, etc.)

Avatar image for cikame
#5 Edited by cikame (2959 posts) -

I'm a PC.

Recently i've been playing Ace Combat 7, Insurgency: Sandstorm, Dead or Alive 5, Trine, Unreal Tournament 2004, DUSK, Time Crisis and Virtua Cop, so i'm all over the place.

Avatar image for sahalarious
#6 Posted by Sahalarious (808 posts) -

While games like Stardew Valley and Hollow Knight (2 of my top 10 of all time) could have probably ran fine on 360, I need to echo previous posts and say that Battle Royale games would definitely not have worked out last gen. Games like Witcher 3, MGSV, Hitman 2, all with so many moving parts would have had to either remove core functionality or become quite ugly to run on a previous gen console. I do still play a lot of back compat 360 games, and Nintendo is weird.

Avatar image for facelessvixen
#7 Posted by FacelessVixen (2711 posts) -

Well I guess the few PS4 games that I have; Bloodbone, Horizon Zero Dawn, Dad of Boy, the Kingdom Hearts anthology, and Ratchet & Clank (2016) run as well on my PS4 Pro in 1080p as my PC can run most big budget games in 1080p, so interpret that however you'd like.

Avatar image for harbinlights
#8 Posted by HarbinLights (194 posts) -

One of my most played games the past couple of years is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

And that game already pushes the Wii U and Switch to its limits. So I would say at least a decent amount.

On the other hand, over half of my time is spend retro-gaming. Usually for 16-Bit games. So I honestly have no idea. %25? No, scratch that, it was mostly 16-Bit games until I became addicted to VRChat, then like %90 of my freetime was spent on VRChat. And that game is far beyond the abilities for current end consoles. If someone were silly enough to attempt to port VRChat to PlayStation VR, you'd get 5 FPS at best and everyone would be sick. Even desktop mode is well beyond the capabilities of the PlayStation 4 Pro or XBOX One X. You absolutely need a reasonably high end i5 or i7 Coffee Lake CPU and GTX 1060 minimum in order to run VRChat, which is beyond what PlayStation and XBOX currently offer. Hoping next gen changes things, though, and that Sony at least releases something on the level of being able to run something like VRChat with a Oculus Rift tier headset when PlayStaton 5 comes out. And is probably what I'm most looking forward to about the PlayStation 5 as someone who doesn't even own a PlayStation 4, but is well aware of the hardware limitations of the system. Since I've put well over a thousand hours into VRChat for the past couple years, and my PC is a i7-8700K watercooled and overclocked, and a GTX 1080 Ti, I guess most of my gametime this generation has been on a PlayStation 5 equivalent of gaming level.

So, %95? I play a lot of games on all ends of the spectrum.

Avatar image for creepingdeath0
#9 Posted by CreepingDeath0 (421 posts) -

@sahalarious: "I need to echo previous posts and say that Battle Royale games would definitely not have worked out last gen."

It's funny to see someone say this immediately after the release of Apex Legends, a 60 player source engine game that absolutely would've been possible on previous gen consoles (with slightly less shiny graphics of course).

Avatar image for adamstambaugh
#10 Posted by AdamStambaugh (42 posts) -

I'm primarily a PC (GNU/Linux) gamer. I've been kind of feeling the same about upgrading my PCs. I haven't really upgraded any of them in a few years at this point, but most games I play still barely push them. So I guess I'll just let them keep trucking along as long as they work and play all the games I want.

I just don't have much desire to have the shiniest graphics. Everything still looks good to me so far.

Avatar image for oodli
#11 Posted by Oodli (246 posts) -

@sahalarious: just a side note, but MGSV did come out on PS3 and 360.

Avatar image for fnrslvr
#12 Posted by fnrslvr (579 posts) -

One of my most played games the past couple of years is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

And that game already pushes the Wii U and Switch to its limits. So I would say at least a decent amount.

^This. I put >400hrs into BotW according to my Switch.

I'm hoping that Microsoft is able to pull together a future for console gaming that is more continuous than what we have now. (I say Microsoft because I think the best we'll get from Sony is PS4 back-compat on PS5.) I'd like to see Play Anywhere encompass Scarlet as well as the current machines and PC, and hopefully Microsoft brings some tech behind the scenes to bridge the technical gap between the platforms and make Play Anywhere for all Xbox game launches more of a sure thing.

I think there are definitely things to gain from another generation hitting soon (proper support for all those nice 4K screens people are getting, faster secondary storage, more CPU power to enable new varieties of gameplay, hardware support for new rendering techniques and maybe streaming, ... ), but people like OP stand to benefit from a gentler onramp into later hardware generations, and I don't think Microsoft needs to ship loads of new hardware to monetize the Xbox base effectively.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#13 Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

@fnrslvr: So I actually don't need a gentler onramp. I would be happy to buy a much more powerful console tomorrow, mostly because I make good money and video games are one of my primary sources of entertainment so sinking another $500 or $1,000 to improve that experience would be an easy call. Heck I bought both a PS4 and Xbox One at launch and have upgraded to a PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. My issue is more that I think that the Xbox One and PS4 era took longer than usual to actually leverage that hardware into actually superior gaming experiences, and even now I think that there are fewer games that make use of those upgrades than there were in prior eras. I'm a little concerned that the next generation is going to have even fewer games that make use of the hardware and increase the current trend of "1000 indie games that could have been made for the PS2/Xbox era and 50 "modern" games a year." That's an exaggeration but not a huge one.

I also think that some of these answers are pretty telling. I love Zelda: BOTW. I cannot name a single game that I definitively like more. But it ran fine on the Wii U, a system that was substantially underpowered when it was launched in 2012. I wouldn't be shocked if it could have run with few compromises on the PS3 (maybe that's not true because the Wii U had 4 times the RAM.) MGS V, as someone mentioned, did have an Xbox 360/PS3 version. I think it's probably right that Battle Royale games could not have run on the 360/PS3...but they do run okay on smart phones, so they're not necessarily system pushers.

I just think gaming is in an unfamiliar place right now, where hardware has become less of a limitation than the ability to actually generate assets to take advantage of that hardware, and where a large percentage of new games just aren't going to use the new technological headroom. I think the idea of porous generations makes sense here; and Microsoft seems to be planning at least two versions of the new Xbox (with different capacities), which also makes sense. I am just not super excited at the idea of another generation of consoles because I think really more than anything gaming needs better middleware tools to allow smaller teams to take advantage of the capacities we already have, so we're not in this place where we get a few huge budget games a year and a bunch of smaller stuff that just takes no real advantage of the hardware.

Avatar image for soulcake
#14 Posted by soulcake (2827 posts) -

If i owned a Xbone (which i don't) i would be pretty pissed about this generation compared to the Xbox360. Since i am a "game enthusiast" i tend to buy 1 console every generation plus a pc upgrade from time to time glad i picked the PS4 with a bunch of exclusives and Microsoft bringing all there first party games to PC, the PS4 seems like the right choice in the end but this wasn't always apprehend at the beginning of the generation from me switching form Xbox360 to PS4. After watching some Digital Foundry it might be for the best especially on the MS side that the hardware get's upgraded that CPU/APU is just getting way to old and being outperformed by modern smartphone cpu's.

Avatar image for sahalarious
#15 Posted by Sahalarious (808 posts) -

@oodli: Fair point, I found those versions framerates and chunkier looks to turn me off, to the point i forgot they existed. I wont be a dick and compare it to the ps2/ps1 tony hawk games, but you definitely felt the game hurting on the previous gen. I admit i forgot though.

@creepingdeath0:I don't think that would be the same game. The stability/player count is something we just did not see last gen. Not trying to argue here but stability is a deciding factor when I play a game.