This is going to be the FIRST gen I don't get a "next gen" console at launch

I am not saying never; as that's silly. There will be games that just are plain awesome that will not be ported to PC. However there is NOTHING intriguing about the next gen from a hardware perspective or a software perspective at launch. At least when the 360 launched in 2005, it came with a GPU that, while rivaled in raw power by the most TOP end GPU solutions the PC had to offer at launch, also had some new technology that looked promising for future PC GPU releases.

The PS4 looks to be offering the superior hardware this go around and it's GPU is equivalent to a mid-range product that has been out since mid 2012. The software gaming launch looks 'meh' to say the least. I have not pre-ordered and am not camping out at launch; a first for me. I camped for the Xbox and 360. I bought the N64, Dreamcast (best first day purchase I have ever made) and a few other systems and portables at launch as well. So who else is not really 'wowed' by the new consoles coming out and are waiting for good games and bundles before pulling the trigger...if at all?

 

I'm in the same boat. Not going to get a console at launch, but I will save up my money to upgrade the GPU in my Alienware laptop. It's a 7970m but eventually I do want to upgrade that. Maybe next year.

But yeah, I probably won't get a console since I'm a PC gamer now. I might get one when the prices drop or just play my dad's since he will probably buy one close to launch.

 

That's not a fair criticism. It's a $399 multimedia device in 2013 that performs like a several-thousand-dollar PC from 2012. Unlimited-budget gaming PCs will always outperform consoles, but most people don't own $2,500 gaming PCs.

The performance the PS4 offers for the money is fantastic.

 

Wait, why do people have to spend $2500 (or some large arbitrary number) to have a good PC gaming experience? Hell, I'm just as happy (if not happier) with my desktop than my 360 (or other consoles), and it's far lower than that.

Anyway, as for me, I don't have any compelling reason to buy any of this generation's consoles. Only console game series I really ever cared about was Ace Combat, but Bandai-Namco took that series to the backyard and shot it in the head with Assault Horizon, and nothing else on the console game market seems worth my time to play (especially with these Steam games piling up, plus responsibilities in meatspace). Maybe out of all three, the PS4 looks to be the best one of the bunch (imo), since the Wii U is acting like a lame duck and the XBO has been riddled with problems (even if Microsoft fixed some of them), plus the whole "pay us to play online" nickel-and-diming. But then again, the PS4 doesn't have any games that look interesting enough to spend time on either...

 

are there any games worth playing? has final fantasy become decent again? are there any rpg that are decent?

Im not going to ask for strategy games or I would probably throw my cat at the console

 

What about game cost?
And it doesn't take $2500 to build a "higher end" desktop. Heck, when I recently built "imaginary" rig, it cost me $2000. And that's with 770, top i5 processor, and a monitor.

 

Hell, $2000 still seems like overkill. $1000 will get you a pretty good gaming rig as well (though I also assume you already have a monitor, OS, etc). Still higher than a console, though you can do a hell of a lot more with a computer, so I figure that makes up for the cost difference.

 

No, it's a completely fair criticism. I don't need many 'multimedia devices' as pretty much every electronic is a multimedia device (PC, console, iphone, android, tablets, et al). MS and Sony purposely went for the "multimedia hub" experience selling point so they can FINALLY make money on both the front end (hardware sales) and back end (software sales). They took a note right out of Nintendo; which is just fine for a casual. However I have always liked that consoles tended to push gaming forward (PC included) as they typically launched with very powerful specs.

It is not a 400 dollar console that performs like a "several thousand dollar PC from 2012." It performs like a PC in 2012 with a GPU a bit weaker than the 7870. It's already not delivering on the "60FPS at 1080p" as many games are running at 30FPS. This is fine for PC gamers to get a LOT of return on their investment by not having to upgrade much. Any way you cut it, if you are a console only gamer (which we all are not), it's pretty sad to think that for the next 8 years, gaming is going to be at 1080p and stuck with a GPU that is already very outdated. 4k TVs will be very affordable within this timeframe and PC games will be able to churn out that resolution but consoles are being marketed as "4K compatible." Anyone with a brain knows a 7870 with all the optimization in the world isn't running a decent game at 4k resolution.

That affects PC gamers because the primary platform for many games will actually be a very weak starting platform. I personally liked upgrading my hardware to have the best gaming experience possible. And while this will still happen and there will be some games that push boundaries (mostly PC exclusives), the fact that this "Multimedia experience" is not exciting at all to me. I dont' need a fancy way to turn on Netflix, have Microsoft try to record every sound that I say so it can "turn on or off" my device when I tell it.

Sony promises to have Vita support to stream PS4 games. It can't even stream PS3 games on my Vita and that would have been the perfect platform to at least BETA it (and they promised streaming). Its SGX 543mp4+ is already getting long-in-the tooth and I doubt it will be streaming anything outside arcade type Wipeout games. I don't blame MS and Sony for wanting to get more green in their gaming divisions and turn profit. However I think this generation will be a recouping generation so that they can take some losses in the future. Why?

This could be the end of console gaming for all intents and purposes and yes, they may have to sell consoles as the "ultimate casual media hub." Pretty complex games can be played on tablets and that is eating into sales big time. More and more people are starting to get access to capable gaming PCs and downloading Steam and seeing the amazing deals and overall experience Steam offers it's users. Consoles are starting to lose their need to be in every living room as tablets, PCs and phones are being bought at ridiculous rates.

Sorry but I am just not one of those gamers that "buy into" that idea or message. I can very easily hook my laptop up to my Plasma or stream HD movies to it already. I have plenty of media devices that integrate just fine. I want cutting edge, technology crammed into those home consoles so that the "lowest common denominator" actually is a powerful beast that PCs barely match when launched and then take awhile to catch up just to the optimization that developers have for coding with the lowest common denominator in mind. As it stands, anyone with a 780m will likely play XB1 games at the same resolution, FPS and shader, shadow and overall image quality that it offers.

Super Mario brothers was next gen, Super Mario 64 was Next Gen, Dreamcast in it's entirety was Next-gen. This go around, consoles are getting less interesting and losing consumer interest are getting what PC gamers have been playing since 2011. Yes, I expect the PS4 for an entire first generation of games (2013-2014) to run games like we did Crysis 2 or Metro2033 in 2011 with DX11 on ultra. It's a bummer....at least for the technology enthusiast. For the people who like gimmicks, wireless motions, talk controls and screens on their controllers, then I guess the next gen is exciting. I'm just a cutting edge (dying breed) kinda gamer I suppose and nothing looks interesting from a hardware, software AND multimedia device.

 

whaaaa???? what was your case? entirely golden??? (and I built this like 2 months ago)

Motherboard:
$123 ASUS P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

CPU:
$229 Intel Core i5-4670K Quad-Core Desktop Processor 3.4 GHZ 6 MB Cache - BX80646I54670K

CPU Cooler:
$28 Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus - CPU Cooler with 4 Direct Contact Heat Pipes (RR-B10-212P-G1)

Memory:
$68 Kingston Technology HyperX 8 GB (2x4 GB Modules) 1600 MHz DDR3 Dual Channel Kit (PC3 12800) 240-Pin SDRAM KHX1600C9D3K2/8GX

GPU:
$268 EVGA GeForce GTX760 SuperClocked 2GB GDDR5 256bit, Dual-Link DVI-I, DVI-D, HDMI,DP, SLI Ready Graphics Card (02G-P4-2762-KR) Graphics Cards 02G-P4-2762-KR

SSD:

HDD:
$63 WD Blue 1 TB Desktop Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, 7200 RPM, SATA 6 Gb/s, 64 MB Cache - WD10EZEX

Case:
$59 Cooler Master HAF 912 - Mid Tower Computer Case with High Airflow

PSU:
$59 Corsair Builder Series CX 600 Watt ATX/EPS 80 PLUS (CX600)

 

A bit far, I know, but don't forget, prices in Europe (Germany in my case) are usually higher (USD=EUR). Plus I had a 770, SSD, Bluray drive, 16GB of RAM and so on (and don't forget a monitor for 250EUR).
When the time comes to buy a PC, I'm planning on spending at least 1500EUR, so it would last me for some time. Console could be cheaper, but some of the games I play are PC exclusive. And those Steam sales... They easily save you cash.

 

It seems like Microsoft and Sony focused & invested more in making their systems fancy with new features than substantially improving performance. They're nice, but not all they're hyped up to be.

Although, perhaps they're ending the traditional 4+ year cycle between refreshes? If they come out with another system within a year or two, I could make sense of this.

 

They won't come out with one in a year or two. Though they NEED a new one by 2015; as these systems (the Xbox 1 in particular) are just too weak to be 2013 gaming machines. You really want to say that 2013 we still haven't gotten true 1080p and still must upscale? YES it's still cheap for what you get, and yes they have a lot of other nice features, but the general public who thinks consoles should be $300 to $400 and play everything with amazeballs graphics need to learn to choose between great system performance or high price. The PS3 as far as I remember had cost over $1200 USD to make when it was released... that's a HUGE loss. The current systems might have a little bit of a loss, but nowhere near that much.

Well, it doesn't really bother me as long as GAMING on the whole advances and we see some more PC optimization (due to the new consoles being more PC-architecture based). Gaming, graphics and optimization stagnated from about 2010 until 2013; with but a couple noteworth exceptions. It literally took the devs to simply say they're fed up with the constraints of the current hardware to try and put more effort into their PC versions, and to realize that NOBODY, not even Microsoft, wants GFWL. I'll be happy if things move along once more and we get some games that actually use what we've got.

 

They may refresh it in 2-3 years, but as far as Microsoft is concerned the Xbox ONE is a ten year console.

I find that a little ridiculous considering in 3-4 years they'll probably have similar performance running 1/3 the power. Maybe they will refresh it, make it ultra thin then. But in 10 years, really? 2023 we'll still have a 2012 mid grade AMD CPU and GPU running the consoles?

 

That's the thing, I think they're referring to all of that fancy interactive software and hardware, and not performance. I bet they will release a new one by 2015, as both I and D2 said.

 

The Xbox360 is almost 8 years old, you think that they are going to release a new console a couple of years from now? They won't release a new one with more powerful hardware for 10 years. The last few console generations have been stretched out longer and longer. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo know that the console market is drying up, and they have planned this generation of consoles to last them a long while. The consoles themselves are no longer sold at a loss, they are made to be extremely easy to program for between different consoles and computers, and they have set up new ways of nickel and diming consumers. They are just trying to maximize profits for as little investment as possible. The only changes we will see are smaller, less power hungry models coming out every few years, just like we have seen in the past.

 

For gaming the £62 760k from amd running at 4.5ghz will do just fine. I put together a pc for my brother in law with an hd7870 and 8gb of ram for £400 (tower) that's $650 and including uk tax lol.

 

No, not a completely new console. I think they will release another version of the Xbox One, like Xbox Slim (or something) with improved stuff, and hopefully they will start using flash storage.

 

I get the slimming down part, but improving stuff wouldn't change anything (aside from power consumption/heat and miniaturization) they will still be making games with the original Xboxone/PS4 fatty in mind, so there will be no improved visuals or power boost of any sort .
I also think they cheaped out with this generation, I really hope we are not stuck with them 8 years like last gen, but IMO this will also be the case this gen .
We still are going to see a small boost in visuals, since the consoles are catching up a bit tech wise, but yeah I too think that they should dial down the consoles life spans by atleast half, I mean come on 8-10 years, who are they kidding, they just want to milk as much cash as possible, the only reason I see the console market drying out is this, the further we are into a console gen the more PC and laptops will be a better choice price/performance wise, even more so this gen, talk about shooting themselves in the foot .

 

The reason I'm suggesting they may release something slgihtly better within 2 years, maybe 3, is because of all of the next generation stuff coming out in 2014/2015 with NVIDIA, AMD, DICE - you name it, they're bringing it to the table. The next generation stuff coming out will dwarf the current generation. And my guess is that the Xbox One will have reached its half-life within 3 years. There's no way the Xbox One will last eight years. I give it four, at the most, if they want to remain competitive.

This is just my opinion, by the way. The only fact here is that the next generation stuff is going to trump the current generation. But then again, we are speaking in regards to consoles, so I may be getting ahead of myself.

You get my point.

 

If they come out with absolute top tier tech then I can appreciate a 7-8 year cycle and recouping costs. But with year old mid performance tech selling for profit from day one, 3 to 4 years makes sense.

If they had a Haswell and next gen amd or nvidia gpu, I could see an 8 year cycle.

Sent from my G2

 

Let us hope that they also think this way, but I am pretty sure they think they can get away with it, hell they probably can, they are going to milk next gen as long as people keep buying them .

 

I'll be skipping this generation for the immediate future. The past few years of PC gaming has spoiled me I suppose and I just can't see myself investing in the new systems. Keep in mind I've owned almost every system since the original Famicon. The media hub features would be great...if I couldn't do pretty much all of the same things on my phone. For the utility of my dollars, I believe I will get far more value dropping $500 on the Galaxy S4 than for either the PS4 or Xbone. Also...Xbone....Did not a single person in MS' marketing department realize that a device mainly marketed to 14-34 year old males shouldn't have the word bone in it? Yea, I am immature but still, what a dumb name.

 

That's why the name is so fitting, because it was obvious M$ was trying to bone customers when it was first announced.

 

Speaking of bones:
Microsoft Now Owns 'Xbone' Domain Name

 

I'm surprised that domain wasn't already owned by a pr0n site.

 

Remember though HTWing, that they are including sales that occur when their next gen console hits as well. This was a long generation for MS (8 years) and they will still support the Xbox 360 for a bit as well so it also will be a 10 year console.

The benefit of the new consoles launching for PC gamers is that the ports will finally be easier to accomplish as the consoles are becoming more like true PCs (as has been the case each generation). Couple that with the fact that they are now working with superior hardware, it will be easier to implement more effects and a bigger game so the PC with enough hardware will be able to run the ports much better. However, because of consoles are being released with very meager hardware, it's going to be painfully obvious in a few years that the consoles are long in the tooth. However, many console gamers never see a gaming PC and basically think they are playing something amazing (Console only gamers are people stuck in the Matrix basically). In a few years, when Volta is out, we will be playing the same ports the consoles have, but at true 4k resolution with probably DX12 or whatever latest tech is out by then. It's going to be interesting this generation. I really see console gaming begin to dwindle because of the amount of competition.

This is the FIRST generation I can remember that DOESN'T have newspapers, websites and bloggers saying "PC gaming is dying." Finally people are realizing that not only is PC gaming going to stay; it's actually picking up Steam (Pun intended).

 

The ONLY reason I will consider an Xbone is the Kinect. My kids LOVE <3 Kinect games. And the new gen seems that much better.

 

The kinect can be a blast, but I've always thought it was better suited to an arcade atmosphere. Like an actual arcade. Having one in my home just feels creepy. I'm one of those people that's kept tape over my webcam, so maybe it's just that.

 

Sony want to make Playstation a service, we all heard the rumor but it seems to be more and more likely this for me is great news, I really do not need or want a console aside for the odd exclusive game, this would be a great compromise and work around .

PlayStation Games Could Stream to PCs, TVs and Phones - IGN

 

As internet speeds get faster and faster, latency is reduced, and as long as data caps are raised or eliminated, this is likely the wave of the future for console gaming. It's sad though, that we'd be entirely reliant on a fast and latency free internet connection. It's bad enough that online games frequently suffer from bad latency, frequent server downtime, and what your internet service provider options are.

 

Seems to me that a meh console is good news for PC gaming. Let them deal with the ports now. Let them complain that it wasn't designed for a console. With a PC I can play on my TV with a 360 controller, or I can play at even higher resolution on a monitor, and get finer control with a mouse and keyboard, and I can connect a kinect, and I can take advantage of Steam sales.

Long live the PC.

 

Haha the thing I am looking forward to the most with these new consoles are the new controllers for playing the few games that are better with a controller on PC, you got to admit playing a sports game or a driving game, or even a Batman/AC like game is pretty terrible with a keyboard and mouse . ^^

 

No it does not. It performs like a pretty good PC, but I've seen nothing in the gameplay demos that I don't already have on my 1500$ desktop from a technical standpoint. It doesn't cost that much money to get performance that well surpasses next gen consoles.

 

Ever notice how every single pc website inevitably has an article along the vein of "Build your own gaming pc for $500-$700"? They usually show how with some with bargain basement shopping, you can cobble together a decent rig that will play most games at 720p at 30 frames a second?
This is basically what the Xbone and PS4 are, with the added benefit of being able to obtain economies of scale in production due to large amounts, thus lowering the price point. So, can you build your own pc at the exact same price point and have the same performance? No. Does this mean that the new PS4 and Xbone are $2,000 super gaming machines that ms and sony have graciously decided to sell at a loss? Also no.

 

edit: ..sorry about rant -> wall of text..

Well, they obviously have high confidence that they're going to set the industry standard with their console now. Since that was what they did so successfully with the xbox, and then even more successfully with the xbox360. There's a huge amount of games for "multiplatform" that essentially were built within the constraints of the 360 sdk.

That has very specific problems (such as requirement for streaming exclusively from disc, suspend/reserved memory, network protocol and minimum requirement setup (read: no limitations), input routines, hardware detection routines (there are different variants of the 360, and using the 360 sdk for "detection" is what practically requires you to rewrite a lot of functions from scratch when porting from 360), never mind the drm setup and how that causes uneven and unpredictable performance..).

So choosing the 360 sdk for a starting point for a multiplatform release isn't really a very good idea from a practical standpoint - or, a practical standpoint as a programmer, or in terms of getting good performance. But because of publishing and PR deals, many developers consciously picked that and did so believing it would benefit them in the end. I don't have to list all the Microsoft "console exclusive" studios that have disbanded since then. But it didn't work out well in the end.

Still - they've dominated so well with this console (with pretty bad hardware), that they've successfully established a standard for how games should be developed. And everyone is following that standard now, even if the default target is a PC rather than the xbox sdk. Including those who have no reason to - large studios that have enough pull to create their own standard still adhere to the "console standard" at the moment. Sony essentially scuttled their own parallel processing project (that they have been pursuing since the ps1) with the ps4. Because there's a "belief" in the industry now that tech cannot advance much further, so leaving in things engineers think is fancy is just going to complicate things.

DICE and Blizzard are great examples of how this works. They see the standard for the ps4 and the 360, and they - even though they are large studios - develop their games towards that target. Which is so low that they also advertise a "last gen" port turning up very quickly.

I.e., from a pure business-standpoint, it costs so little extra to develop a port to the ps3 and other "last-gen" hardware, that they're just going to do it along with the "next gen" games. And there's no working around that, because the publishers want it - and they know people will go along with it as well. After all, the xbox360 sold great, and the bad ports on the ps3 sold more than the exclusives with genuinely interesting tech.

They know this from experience, so why wouldn't they keep going? They'll be able to sell hardware for profits (rather than recoup the cost on games-sales). While artificially inflating the prices on games. And adding exclusive channels for dlc purchases. And of course also taking a premium for just staying connected to the internet (both consoles are going to charge you for playing online next gen).

There's no rational explanation for why people would go along with this, if they have a minimum amount of technical understanding. And yet, it's clearly working for Microsoft so well that they objectively - against any kind of protest that this is a bad idea from a customer-standpoint - will earn money on repeating the same process again.

We'll of course get worse and worse games for it, and the ones that will come out will be more and more expensive, as the major publishers start to rely more and more on their die-hard core audience rather than the rest of us. But targeting the niche that think it's a status-symbol, who believe the "paywall" is going to keep the rabble out, who think not being "directly connected to the internet" is a children-friendly and responsible way to treat the scary internetopia, etc. - this is working so well for Microsoft, that they will repeat it.

Meanwhile, actual interesting tech that could produce better games with more complex physics, massively more complex graphics, and better input handling, etc. That would also work on less power, with smaller production costs, and that would be upgradeable and scaleable -- this isn't interesting for this industry. And it's not interesting for the niche-audience that controls/reinforces how publishing works.

So that's what we'll get. Unless people consciously choose things like the Ouya, or support companies creating boxes that would work with multiple distribution systems at the very least-- and have no interest in having complex math and longer instruction words being possible to run on integrated processing elements. To see more interesting virtual and interactive entertainment take shape. Then this is what we're going to see -- that no developers and no publishers are willing to compete on tech and graphics.

Everything will look the same, have the same animation quirks and limitations (read: Unreal 3 engine), have the same stuttering when simulating physics, have the same problems with complex scenes/overdraw, etc.

Note that none of this is really unknown as such. I know several developers now who have just packed up and dropped developing games altogether, because they know their talents will not be used. I.e., they used to work in games because it allowed them to use more interesting tech and develop more interesting things than what you tend to do at a normal IT job. And that factor is just completely gone this generation. While the tendency will continue into the next one.

Meanwhile, see it relatively often that large developers actually cling to the current development process, because it allows them to keep the costs for production relatively high. I.e., they know that with the current publishers, creating more convenient tools that won't actually force you to recreate assets, etc., is going to just lose them the job.

And that's how both large and small development studios disappear to mobile/android, and pour into the lower range PC market. Not that that is going to outcompete the "major titles" any time soon, no matter how much people insist (and wish) that is going to happen in order to break Microsoft (see: Nintendo, Apple, etc. for example). But that's where you find the good developers now - the ones that can limit their studio to a couple of people, and develop consciously for a low multiplatform target.

The studios that create good exclusive games - but don't have the PR weight of a major publisher behind them - just disappear. No matter how good their actual games are.

That's the reality of this, and what people's buying habits are causing.

 

These medium level, generic PC consoles allow for something that they might do. In four years they could offer a version with upgraded hardware, that is

Backward compatible.

This would allow the XBone to get ahead of the PS4. Just like PC games need, or used to need, a certain level of DirectX, and minimum hardware, so could the consoles. I.e. made for XBox One V2, or the game could auto detect, and offer different visual levels. Just like PC games do, i.e. Ultra, High, etc. But the console would set everything for you.

 

Okay, so a $399 Playstation plays games like your $1,500 gaming PC. You're still spending nearly four times as much when you go the gaming desktop route. And you don't think that's a persuasive argument in favor of the Playstation for most people?

 

Yea, I've conveniently decided to ignore the issue of backwards compatibility. No need to kick a gamer when they're already down, you know? Consoles still have their place. We might make fun of our console brethren for having to endure load times and update patches for their games, but not a single one of them has ever had to deal with a MS Patch Tuesday.

For me, personally, it's just that this new gen of consoles fails to innovate in any particular way that convinces me to spend $500+ (console, extra controller, games, subscription where necessary, etc) when I just dropped close to $1700 less than a year ago. I was a first wave buyer of the Wii many years ago because it was something I had never seen before - yet by the time xbox introduced their Kinect, the appeal had already worn off.

 

I didn't say it wasn't, I'm just saying let's not overstate the case.

 

Apples and oranges, really. i get how the price point would be factor #1 for some people. Without comparing the non-gaming functionality of the two, let's look solely at gaming performance. The desktop/laptop always wins, even on price if you consider MS and Sony's manufacturing economy of scale. Higher resolutions, multi-screen gaming, more graphical options, the list really does go on and on. This isn't to say that the next gen consoles are kids toys that should be branded by Fisher Price, and i don't want to sound like a pc elitist, but the pc wins, hands-down, every single time.

 

That's true if we're talking about $1,500 gaming desktops, but which laptops are you talking about that always will beat a Playstation 4 on gaming performance "hands down, every single time"...and how much do those laptops cost?

 

Wouldn't pretty much any Clevo/MSi gaming laptop at that price match or exceed a console, assuming a standard 30fps average, 1080p output?

As for consoles themselves, they don't always run perfectly with no lag either. For example, in the final mission of Ace Combat 6 (Xbox 360), if you fly near the end of Chandelier's cannon when it fires, the Xbox 360 will slow to a crawl (single-digit fps) for a few seconds while it renders that scene (and your consequent death). Happens on both the original Xbox 360 and the Slim.

 

Ah, a slow motion death. Classic.

 

I believe it is possible to throw an AMD 8970M and i7-4700MQ with a 750GB hard drive in clevos while keeping it around a $1500-1600 price point... let me go check if I'm right.
ALSO, please remember that you must include the cost of a 1080p screen for the consoles in the price if you're price matching; as they are not shipped with any displays.

EDIT: XOTIC PC | Sager NP8275-S (Clevo P170SM) - Special Edition yes, here you go. Take out the SSD, put in the 8970M, add IC diamond, take out the blu-ray and add in the dvd drive, add windows 8, and you even get free shipping if you're in the US. That's exactly $1,604.00 without the price discount, and you're even getting an OS in there too. That'll beat any of the upcoming consoles at 1080p gaming.

 

Two birds with one stone, if you ask me.

 

To be honest it just boils down on the types of games available on the platform. The OP just mentioned that none of the upcoming games interest them thus not buying the new consoles at launch and that is fine, I’m in the same position myself (well actually I never had a gaming console at launch at all - wasn't that desperate)!

For sure in a technical standpoint the recent PC hardware will be superior to the modern console, not to mention the advantage of upgradability over the course of its lifetime. But it really doesn't matter if you have $1500+ spec computer, at the end of the day if a certain game you want to play doesn’t come on the platform then the fact is you won’t be able to enjoy it!

Lately I spent a lot of my gaming time on the £135 PS3 instead of my £1700 desktop even though it has the superior horsepower under the bonnet! It just happens that most of the games I wanted to play are exclusive to the console so it can't be helped!

 

That's even overkill to be honest. If you look at the MSI GX60 or GX70 you can grab those for ~$1200 for a base configuration with AMD A10 CPU and Radeon 8970m.

If you go with desktop, well I think it's safe to say you can easily configure a machine for < $800 that will knock the socks off any of the consoles. Someone else in this thread or another did one for ~ $500 that was comparable.

But yes it does come down to exclusives. Although this time around there will likely only be a handful of exclusives. Publishers would be silly to not design for both considering they have such similar hardware.

 

I think the biggest reason to get a console is sports games. For some reason very few of them are available on PC now and those that are are usually watered down versions of their console counterparts. If you like Madden or NHL (and I do!) you need a console. Especially if you want to play with friends.

 

1 - True, true. I did this mainly in response to someone saying that $1500 desktops would melt through anything next-gen-consoleish but he did not know which laptops could; so I took the flagship AMD card and the entry i7 with more hard drive space than the consoles have + an OS and blam, winsauce.

2 - It's less about architecture/hardware that they'll forego true exclusivity in most games. Most "exclusives" for Xbox 1 (Titanfall, Killer Instinct, etc) are actually set to come out for PS4/PC/etc etc later on for the most part. The reason being that they want to make money. Games are costing more and more to make; people are rushing, they're needing to hire voice actors, they need to throw money around with information leak control, all that. My buddy who worked on MW3 said when some guy in france or whatever ended up with an alpha copy of half of MW3's PC version, they were all called in the office at like 2 am to be investigated by the FBI and stuff. That's where most of the money goes, but they want to maximise profits so the more platforms the better... regardless of architecture.

 

...you mean, like directx7 and 8 work flawlessly on "directx11" hardware?

Or the way xbox games work on the xbox360? Or the way ps2 games work on the ps3?

Look. This has been completely and perfectly possible to do all along. The cell-processor/software based ps2 emulator for the ps3 for example is near flawless. In addition, it gives you options to render text and overlays in different layers, so the upscaling won't look as ugly. Higher internal resolution as well makes the game look significantly better than the original in many cases.

The xbox was the same - the actual "emulator", or more accurately the translation between one platform to the other, is completely feasible and possible to do perfectly well.

So why isn't it done, you ask? Why do you have to buy ps2 games for a fairly high price, individually(even if you own the game already). While "HD" editions turn up with heavy upscale artefacts and bad handling of 4:3 resolution to 16:9 resolutions? How come they don't release batches of old games on the cheap via the distribution systems they have, etc?

The reason for that is that publishers don't want to sell the old games digitally, unless there is some potential to earn money on them. While if there is a possibility that a relaunch will earn money - they will aim for a hd re-release on disc. Similarly, if the sales-potential isn't really high enough, then many publishers out there at the moment will rather sit on the license than sell it to someone who wants to release the game. Or, they'll ask a price for it that has no grounding in reality.

And that's a system that is possible to maintain, because the console-manufacturers own the OS, and they essentially own the game as well. If you buy a console-game now, you rent it. That's increasingly the case on PC as well, with the proprietary drm systems rolling out such as Origin, Steam, UPlay, etc. Individual systems for individual games as well ensure that if, in the future, support for the exact system is no longer present - then you can't use the game. Even if Valve is relatively liberal about this, you rely on Steam being online if you want to play your games when you've bought them through steam. We can imagine that in the case that Valve would some day disband steam, or drop windows7 support, etc. That they would allow people to download and circumvent the access systems in order to keep their purchases that they've downloaded at least. But if they chose not to do that, you don't have the product. You just lose access, and it's because the drm-system dropped your system.

With Sony and Microsoft, that happens every new "next gen" cycle. They want to sell games that they have just had developed. They want to sell games that are currently being promoted. They want to recoup the costs on the next console, not increase the sales of the previous one, etc. They also want to cut the legs off the used game market, and so on.

So there's no incentive to offer backwards-compatibility.

And that results in, which it did with the xbox360 and the ps3 - that actual functioning and technically brilliant backwards-compatibility options actually was developed to completion. But that the solution never really was used.

In other words, if you really believe that putting an OS on common hardware that essentially functions as one huge DRM solution - is going to give you control over what you can use that console for. Then you're not thinking clearly.