[Steven]

Originally Posted by CAS FAN

I guess the issue with consoles is that on say a 32"-42" tv (which is what a lot of people have) they still look pretty good as the lack of resolution, AA, AF, texture resolution etc. doesn't matter as much on that size screen. This is one of the reasons why the generation has gone on for so long I guess.

This is so simplistic. It took MS and Sony years before they refined the manufacturing to make a profit on hardware sales. And features were increasingly added to make each console truly multi-entertainment devices.

It makes no commercial sense therefore to dump expensive investments for the sake of keeping up with PC gaming when frankly the justification and demand was not there. Graphics are not everything. When developers reached the wall they had to concentrate instead on the experience. Some of the very best games of this gen have come out post-2010 because of it, they just happened to be good to look at as well being in the final quarter. Sure better specs in next gen consoles will be nice to smooth out the compromises but the distinction of seeking that graphics nirvana is increasingly blurred and smaller.

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by Steven

This is so simplistic. It took MS and Sony years before they refined the manufacturing to make a profit on hardware sales. And features were increasingly added to make each console truly multi-entertainment devices.

It makes no commercial sense therefore to dump expensive investments for the sake of keeping up with PC gaming when frankly the justification and demand was not there. Graphics are not everything. When developers reached the wall they had to concentrate instead on the experience. Some of the very best games of this gen have come out post-2010 because of it, they just happened to be good to look at as well being in the final quarter. Sure better specs in next gen consoles will be nice to smooth out the compromises but the distinction of seeking that graphics nirvana is increasingly blurred and smaller.

Yes it is pretty simplistic, but these things often are. Like you say, "the distinction of seeking that graphics nirvana is increasingly blurred and smaller", especially as most folk game on relatively small TV screens (say 32" to 42") where the differences between say a high end pc game and a current console game are not as evident. In previous generations there were some quite large leaps (2d to 3d, limited textures to fully textured and bump mapped, sd to hd etc.) but a new console now would really just have say better AA, all games at 1080p, higher res textures etc. and whilst these improvements will be easily seen on a large screen (say a big 60" plasma or a 100" projection screen), they wouldn't look hugely different on say a 32" LCD.

What I'd like to see is for consoles and pc's to separate again, but that's never going to happen now. Back in the day consoles had their own games and their own tech and it didn't really matter what pc gaming was doing as they both dealt with such different areas of gaming. But since the ps1 really, consoles have become more and more pc based and now many games are even ported between consoles and pcs. Console gamers are now little more than low end pc gamers really and whilst console tech does get to near parity with PCs when they are first released, the gulf returns after a year or two. Like I say, I very much doubt that we're not going to return to the days where consoles and PCs were separate, but I'd love to see it none the less.

[Dangerous_Dave]

I'd rather see them spend less money adding features that we don't really need/use to games consoles if it's going to mean that they only get replaced once every 8 years. I'm thinking of starting a poll as to how many console gamers make frequent use of any of the other functionality apart from gaming and the extremely easy to implement blu-ray/DVD playback functionality.

Personally I'd rather see them take parts more or less off the shelf, slightly behind the bleeding edge, and release once every 4-5 years at cost price. If Steam approached AMD and partners, they'd be able to put together a pretty nice box for £350 with current tech. Then release a slim version mid-term for half the money.

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

I'd rather see them spend less money adding features that we don't really need/use to games consoles if it's going to mean that they only get replaced once every 8 years. I'm thinking of starting a poll as to how many console gamers make frequent use of any of the other functionality apart from gaming and the extremely easy to implement blu-ray/DVD playback functionality.

Personally I'd rather see them take parts more or less off the shelf, slightly behind the bleeding edge, and release once every 4-5 years at cost price. If Steam approached AMD and partners, they'd be able to put together a pretty nice box for £350 with current tech. Then release a slim version mid-term for half the money.

I miss the days of cartridges. Stick the cart in, flick a switch and the game comes on! Now that is a console, no OS or other rubbish, just the game. Now there's no sense in going back to expensive carts now but having a simple Steam box like you mention which is just a store to buy games from and a library of games would be great. I've got about 10 devices which I can access Facebook, twitter, sky and other tv, the Internet and email on so don't need another. I even have several devices which play blu rays and DVDs so don't need another one of those either.

Sadly though, the console manufacturers are more interested in being this all singing all dancing box under the tv through which they can sell us all manner of services.

[DJSigma]

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

I'm thinking of starting a poll as to how many console gamers make frequent use of any of the other functionality apart from gaming and the extremely easy to implement blu-ray/DVD playback functionality.

Loads of people use the non-gaming functionality.

The new figures, released by Microsoft, show that Xbox Live Gold members in the US are now spending an average of 84 hours per month accessing content through apps on Xbox Live. Entertainment app usage has more than doubled year-on-year and there has been a 30 per cent increase in the total number of hours spend on the platform around the world.

For the first time Microsoft says that Xbox Live members are now spending more time watching TV, music and films on the Live platform, that playing multiplayer games.

TV and movies overtake online gaming on Xbox 360 - Telegraph

I don't think she proof-read that article, cos it's full of typos. :D

Likewise, if I look at my Xbox Live friends list, I see things like this: -

The vocal minority tends to speak loudest though. Too many people are in the mindset of "well, this is what I do, so this must be what everyone else wants" IMO. The evidence is pretty clear that the apps on the 360 (for example - I'm sure they're popular on other consoles too) have been a huge success.

And let's face it, if PC gaming satisfied all of your needs, you simply wouldn't own a 360, PS3, Vita etc.

[Dangerous_Dave]

Actually I said I was thinking about conducting a poll to find out, so you're quite wrong to suggest I was forcing my opinion on other people or prejudging the situation.

Anyways, even if people are using the aps, how many of them would choose aps and 8 years console cycles over no aps and 4-5 year console cycles, if given the choice? If the trade (on a games console, remember) is playing on vaguely up to date technology vs being able to watch netflix without getting my laptop out, I know which one I'm going to choose.

Originally Posted by DJSigma

Loads of people use the non-gaming functionality.


TV and movies overtake online gaming on Xbox 360 - Telegraph

I don't think she proof-read that article, cos it's full of typos. :D

Likewise, if I look at my Xbox Live friends list, I see things like this: -

image


The vocal minority tends to speak loudest though. Too many people are in the mindset of "well, this is what I do, so this must be what everyone else wants" IMO. The evidence is pretty clear that the apps on the 360 (for example - I'm sure they're popular on other consoles too) have been a huge success.

And let's face it, if PC gaming satisfied all of your needs, you simply wouldn't own a 360, PS3, Vita etc.

[Dangerous_Dave]

Is there any way to do polls on this forum?

[DJSigma]

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

Actually I said I was thinking about conducting a poll to find out, so you're quite wrong to suggest I was forcing my opinion on other people or prejudging the situation.

I didn't imply that about you personally. I didn't mean to anyway, so sorry if it came across that way.

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

Anyways, even if people are using the aps, how many of them would choose aps and 8 years console cycles over no aps and 4-5 year console cycles, if given the choice?

That's a different argument and it's virtually impossible to say, but worldwide 360 sales are at their highest now - and the price can't be the reason for that as it hasn't been cut in 3 years - so clearly there are millions who still want to purchase a console built in 2005 in 2012. Why limit people to that choice though? Why not have a console cycle every 4-5 years and include the apps as well? Clearly people are using them in huge numbers and they've only been available on the 360 for a relatively short time. It'll only get better as more and more are added.

Graphics whores are obviously in the tiny minority as the Wii was the best selling console of this gen by far and that can't even do HD. The most powerful console has never sold the most, cos that's simply not what people want - it's hard to argue otherwise when we know the sale figures!

[Dangerous_Dave]

To be honest with you I don't think the aps or most of the other functionality is the reason for the long cycle. Most aps were added as we went along, and I don't think there was really a great deal of cost in terms of R&D getting them there. And much of the basic playback functionality again is nothing revolutionary. Some of the features will have cost them, but a lot of the popular stuff is not really research heavy.

It seems like the main reason for the long cycles is that for some time at the start of the cycle the consoles were being sold at a loss. If you sell at a loss for 18 months, and then it takes another 18 months to recoup those losses, that's 3 years before you even break even and begin the normal cycle of profitability. That's 3 years that could be cut from the cycle if you started off with a slightly less ambitious machine selling at cost price (I know it's not quite that simple).

It seems to me that the average standard of 'powerfulness' over the years would be greater for a console released every four years but slightly behind the leading edge of tech on each occasion, than a console that was released once every 8 years with the absolute top of the line tech at the time, because the former would be well ahead of the latter for the whole second half of its cycle.

[DJSigma]

I think it's based largely on supply and demand. Why would MS release a new console when the current one is selling better than ever at the point where it's most profitable for them? Wii sales tanked a good while ago, so I can understand why Nintendo will be launching the Wii-U this year, but there's no reason for MS or Sony to roll out new consoles until the market shows signs of people no longer wanting the current ones. Developers are perfectly happy to have install bases of 50+ million for both the 360 and PS3 to sell games to as well.

[Steven]

CAS, that was a long way of saying that the current market is console driven. Yes PC is still doing well but take away Steam and WOW, the figures would be interesting reading

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

I'd rather see them spend less money adding features that we don't really need/use to games consoles if it's going to mean that they only get replaced once every 8 years. I'm thinking of starting a poll as to how many console gamers make frequent use of any of the other functionality apart from gaming and the extremely easy to implement blu-ray/DVD playback functionality.

The PS3 was the reason Blu-ray won the format war. It is my only Blu-ray player and that is replicated worldwide. And with all respect the following articles negates the need for a poll:
BBC - BBC Internet Blog: December 2010 BBC iPlayer monthly performance pack
BBC - BBC Internet Blog: BBC iPlayer launches on XBox 360
BBC - Media Centre - Record viewing figures for BBC iPlayer in 2011

Just because you or others do not make full use of multi-media features does not mean millions do not. Why are you grumbling about free/commercial additions anyway which you can ignore?

[Dangerous_Dave]

Originally Posted by Steven

Why are you grumbling about free/commercial additions anyway which you can ignore?

Because they were apparently being put forth as the reason for the long cycle time - but actually I doubt that's the case now.

[Steven]

The graphical capabilities of this gen consoles are such nobody has been clamouring for the next big thing. Just compare 360 and PS3 titles to the XB and PS2. In fact the industry has been making a nice sideline in "HD" upgrades and re-releasing previous hits. And actually there are some owners who believe another 1.5 years of the 360 and PS3 before their successors are announced/released might be about right just so we have eeked every last drop out of them

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by Steven

CAS, that was a long way of saying that the current market is console driven. Yes PC is still doing well but take away Steam and WOW, the figures would be interesting reading

The PS3 was the reason Blu-ray won the format war. It is my only Blu-ray player and that is replicated worldwide. And with all respect the following articles negates the need for a poll:
BBC - BBC Internet Blog: December 2010 BBC iPlayer monthly performance pack
BBC - BBC Internet Blog: BBC iPlayer launches on XBox 360
BBC - Media Centre - Record viewing figures for BBC iPlayer in 2011

Just because you or others do not make full use of multi-media features does not mean millions do not. Why are you grumbling about free/commercial additions anyway which you can ignore?

I'd say the the market has been console driven to some extent for a long time Steven. That said I wouldn't say that the success of pc gaming is just down to steam and wow as PC sales were good before steam or wow came about.

I guess that all media is converging and for some time now manufacturers have been building devices to fight for the right to be the number one media provider. It's no longer about being the best games console as most devices now deliver film, music, tv, Internet, games, social media etc. It's about being the best media delivery system. Playstation and Xbox are coming from a gaming perspective, apple from a music background, tv companies (samsung, panny, toshiba etc.) from a tv background etc. but they all want devices which deliver everything to the consumer.

I guess the only device there which we all already have is a tv so it would make sense to do away with the other devices and have everything through the tv instead, but it won't be that easy. I guess the likes of Sony will be in a strong position as they already have the well respected Bravia, Playstation and even still the Walkman brand when it comes to media delivery across games, tv and music, where as most other companies are fighting from just one perspective. I guess Apple have also diversified well with the iPod, iPad, iPhone, iMac and apple tv covering a wide array of media delivery too.

PC's are fairly niche and I see them maybe struggling to survive the the converged media world. That would be a shame though as I do love to spec up a PC and love the diversity that they bring to gaming. I guess there's certainly nothing to stop whichever media services come out on top being available on PC's and hopefully that more bespoke option will remain.

[Sega Mega Dave]

Where are we?

Well consoles hit their limit a few years ago and are currently holding back the development of gaming. Instead we're subjected to childish gimmicks like kinect and move to milk the buyer dry.

For the good of gaming new consoles are needed. Dunno how anyone can be happy with sub HD graphics, low frame rates, no AA and generally low textured games. That's not including the mechanics of a game that suffer due to old tech.

I mean PCs are running silly high res, multiple screens, upto 120fps, higher quality textures. Then things like 64 players plus. I've not even gone into levels of AA, tesselation and many other DX 11 goodness.

[Dangerous_Dave]

That looks like +1 for shorter cycles and less peripheral features.

[CAS FAN]

Microsoft have done a clever thing with the 360 marketing wise. They released it in 2005 as a hardcore games console and a year or so later Nintendo released the Wii, which was a casual gamers console with old tech. Now instead of releasing a low tech console of their own, MS have just waited until the 360 became low tech and they then released Kinect, which attracted a whole new customer base (most of which were wii gamers). So now they have a decent hardcore following who have stayed loyal to the console, despite it's now low spec and also now a good casual following which has seen sales increase with the release of kinect.

Really if you think about it they have done the same as Nintendo did with the GameCube and the Wii, but all from one console and a peripheral launch.

The only problem is that we now have consoles with probably their lowest relative spec in the last 20 years at least when compared to pc gaming. The good thing is that when new consoles do come out, those folk who don't bother with pc gaming will notice a HUGE rise in performance.

[MikeKay1976]

Originally Posted by Dangerous_Dave

I currently maintain a gaming PC, Xbox 360 and PS3, but really hardly ever use the PC

Each to their own, and I partly agree with you. I have a moderately specced PC (Sandy I5 @ 4.6ghz with a OC GTX 560Ti) and yet I still barely touch it. Personally convenience does not bother me, I dont mind keeping on top of drivers and working through bugs and waiting on patches but can sympathise with those that do.

My main problem is that whilst its all well and good having a nice pc, so long as your friends who want to game all do it on console i am stuffed - i purchased lost planet 2 last week on xbox despite the pc version being better, and have also got dead island, MW3 and a whole host of other games on xbox i could have gotten on my pc.

I am also a bit of a live achievement freak, and i know steam have ripped off the system but i am NOT starting on another list of achievements!!!.

I REALLY hope windows 8 offers cross platform gaming on some games, that way I can have my cake and eat it, shiny graphics and still keeping in touch with mates.

On top of that the graphics still don't seem all that much better, considering how much extra power my GTX470 should have compared with the archaic chips in the consoles. And, of course, gaming PCs are a lot more expensive than a console.

I DO disagree with you that there is not much in a fully specced PC and a console however. games like battlefield 3, skyrim - with the HD pack and pretty much any new game are a lot prettier on pc, and in the terms of BF3 offer a superior gaming experience.

Each to their own however, its all about the games, how you get your fix is irrelavent .

[CAS FAN]

Good post Mike. It's true that there are so many other factors like which machine your friends game on. I guess my position is different to many as not many of my current friends game at all and to be honest I just prefer single player games these days anyway. I just have the time to invest in being good at multiplayer games, where as before the kids came along I was always on games like Counterstrike, Day of Defeat, PGR2, Forza, PES, Halo 2, COD4 etc. playing online.

These days, in contrast to Dave, I own all current machines (360, PS3, Wii, PC, 3DS, PS Vita) and spend 95% of my gaming time on the PC. I just find that there's a more diverse range of games (legends of Grimlock, which I'll be playing tonight is just one example), I prefer Steam to having to swap discs and the games look considerably better on the pc if you play on a large projection screen. If I had a load of mates who had say 360's however and the inclination to play multiplayer games however then I'd spend more time on the 360, but that's just not the case with me.

As you say Mike. It's all about how we get out gaming kicks in our spare time and what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another. Me, I'm now deeply routed in another pc phase, but as soon as some new consoles come out I'll most likely be all over them for a couple of years at least.

[SNUK10]

How much would a decent gaming PC set up cost?

Most people hated paying £400 for a PS3 on release so multiples of this just isnt going to work for alot of gamers.

Also, I couldnt imagine that using a mouse and a keyboard would be a better experience than a control pad or joystick.

For me the biggest reason I dont engage in PC gaming is that I want a big screen (50 inches +) and simplicity. I hate using a home PC for non gaming activities let alone using it for hardcore gaming. Do PC gamers sit on a desk all the time or do you have your PC connected to your AV equipment in the front room or other dedicated room. For gaming, slouching on a couch is a must imo. I couldnt sit on a desk to do it.

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by SNUK10

How much would a decent gaming PC set up cost?

Most people hated paying £400 for a PS3 on release so multiples of this just isnt going to work for alot of gamers.

Also, I couldnt imagine that using a mouse and a keyboard would be a better experience than a control pad or joystick.

For me the biggest reason I dont engage in PC gaming is that I want a big screen (50 inches +) and simplicity. I hate using a home PC for non gaming activities let alone using it for hardcore gaming. Do PC gamers sit on a desk all the time or do you have your PC connected to your AV equipment in the front room or other dedicated room. For gaming, slouching on a couch is a must imo. I couldnt sit on a desk to do it.

Depends, you can get a pc which blows away current consoles for around £600 so not that much more than the £425 ps3 at launch. Chuck in the price of console games, dedicated peripherals etc. and there's not a lot in it. That said you can spend a lot more if you want the latest tech and a 4gb 680gtx card will set you back around £600 by itself. To be honest though if you're scrimping on a budget then a console may be the best option anyway, pcs are generally for those who want the best gaming experience in terms of visuals and game diversity anyway.

I would never personally game at a desk as I don't find it a relaxing experience. My pc is hooked upto a projector which projects onto a 120" screen so should be enough for your needs. I play most games on a wireless 360 joypad, but use a Fanatec wheel and pedals for racing sims and a mouse and keyboard on say strategy games so I get the best of all worlds control wise. Sound is via my 7.1 surround sound system.

[DistortionNat]

Originally Posted by sega mega dave

where are we?

Well consoles hit their limit a few years ago and are currently holding back the development of gaming. Instead we're subjected to childish gimmicks like kinect and move to milk the buyer dry.

For the good of gaming new consoles are needed. Dunno how anyone can be happy with sub hd graphics, low frame rates, no aa and generally low textured games. That's not including the mechanics of a game that suffer due to old tech.

I mean pcs are running silly high res, multiple screens, upto 120fps, higher quality textures. Then things like 64 players plus. I've not even gone into levels of aa, tesselation and many other dx 11 goodness.

+1

[DistortionNat]

Just for the record I run an 8gb i5 machine with a 6950.
Setup in the living room its HDMI out straight into my AV receiver and then on to a Panny 50" plasma and Epson 1080p 120" projector. Harmony One and wireless mini keyboard with trackball mouse.
I run MediaPortal for everything except BlurRay, for that I use a Sony standalone, and thats purely because Sony have turned BluRay into a horrific DRM nightmare and PCs struggle with playback.
We had an Xbox 360 but that got sold years ago when it became obvious that it was an ageing technology. We still have the PS3 and my youngest plays Fifa on it but I refuse to use it for anything else as its restricted in so many ways and makes a far too much fan noise for my liking. I also still have my Wii and I do love it for the good old Mario games, Nintendo have fun nailed imho.
So yeah I LOVE my PC setup, I love gaming on it in proper full HD with FSAA and everything on max, I love MediaPortal its fantastic. Its in a different league to any console, it not even worth comparing to be honest.

[SNUK10]

Originally Posted by CAS FAN

I would never personally game at a desk as I don't find it a relaxing experience. My pc is hooked upto a projector which projects onto a 120" screen so should be enough for your needs. I play most games on a wireless 360 joypad, but use a Fanatec wheel and pedals for racing sims and a mouse and keyboard on say strategy games so I get the best of all worlds control wise. Sound is via my 7.1 surround sound system.

Nice. This is what I would also be doing. Forgot about using a 360 pad for the PC. I always imagined PC gamers to be sitting at a desk on their small monitors playing battlefield 3 with their mouse and keyboard.

I will have to look into this.

Any chance someone can provide an example list of a decent set up

[Miss Chief]

Some people do still play at a desk, like myself. I 'only' have a 22" monitor and play with mouse and keyboard always. I suspect I am going to be more and more in the minority as people move to gaming on their telly on the sofa though.

[Sega Mega Dave]

Most PC gamers still sit at a desk, much better than slouching on a sofa. You have far more control on a solid surface.

Also I don't like gaming on a big screen.

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by Sega Mega Dave

Most PC gamers still sit at a desk, much better than slouching on a sofa. You have far more control on a solid surface.

Also I don't like gaming on a big screen.

I think that if you compared the amount who have the pc connected to a tv/projector now to say even 5 years ago then the difference would be huge. There has been huge growth in the htpc and small pc market place and more than ever gamers are combining their home theatre and gaming needs in the one pc. I guess your hardcore fps players will still use a desk but these are probably not a huge proportion of pc gamers. You do get more control with a mouse and keyboard at a desk but again most of games I play are played on a 360 pad.

PC's will become more and more a part of people's av systems and most graphics cards these days have HDMI arc connections and are very simple to hook up to the fairly high res displays which now adorn our walls. Again go back say 5+ years and 1080p displays were in the minority. Sure you don't get the very high resolutions of a monitor, but for most folk 1080p is sufficient.

Your post is clearly from a desk gamers perspective but most people do prefer the comfort of relaxing of the sofa whilst gaming and again I'd suggest that whilst you are not a fan of big screen gaming, that again is most likely a minority view. It's certainly not my view as I game on a 120" screen which is rather large lol.

[DistortionNat]

Originally Posted by Sega Mega Dave

Also I don't like gaming on a big screen.

How strange....

[Sega Mega Dave]

Originally Posted by DistortionNat

How strange....

Not really, most my gaming is FPS and I can assure you it's a lot easier and I get far better results playing on a 23" screen at 120fps.

Less screen to scan over and can generally see the whole action from one view point.

[CAS FAN]

Originally Posted by Sega Mega Dave

Not really, most my gaming is FPS and I can assure you it's a lot easier and I get far better results playing on a 23" screen at 120fps.

Less screen to scan over and can generally see the whole action from one view point.

If I was going to bother with fps games online then I'd go with a monitor myself but to be honest I tend to play more rpg's, 3rd person adventure games, racing sims, strategy games etc. and find the big screen experience better for those games. Gaming for me these days is more about the immersive experience than being competitive in online fps titles. Don't get me wrong, used to love them back in the days of day of defeat, Counterstrike, medal of honour AA, Call of Duty etc. but my personal preference lies elsewhere now.