On last week's mailbox Mike Brady made a case for this generation of consoles being the best ever.
This week we've got Steve Wood, who says he's not completely done with the PlayStation 3 and doesn't want Sony to release the PlayStation 4 yet.
To have your letter featured on CVG's Mailbox, drop us a line.
PSM3 says: Interesting - just exactly what will the next-gen offer? More power is good, but we've passed the point where power alone is enough to earn our hard-earned cash. And Vita could muddy the waters, true - if it sells better here than it's currently doing in Japan.
CVG says:: We're actually quite excited to see what the PlayStation 3 holds over the next few months, if we cast our minds back to the PS2 era some of our favourite games - and a lot of the platform's most unique games - came out towards the end of its lifecycle. Either way we're in for a treat, for the record though we think it still has plenty to offer.
Still can't grill anything with it yet.
Comments
69 comments so far...
flyfletch on 4 Feb '12 said:
I still think the PS3 has a lot to offer, but i cant help getting excited about the lure of new hardware, cant beat the feeling of standing outside on a midnight launch waiting to get my hands on the new hardware! I have been gaming for prob close on 26 years, and i still get that feeling! and im 34 now! Sad, but i love it lol
Dimpee on 4 Feb '12 said:
Party chat please!
Padua on 4 Feb '12 said:
Plain crazy or has no imagination
How about:
1Tb storage
4Gb Ram
Faster Blu-ray drive
1080P games running at high frame rates
PS3 Backward Compatability
NFC
and last but not least : Cross-game chat
...if it could fry steak good also that would be a bonus
ckyleburnett on 4 Feb '12 said:
Interesting topic. Do i need PS4 right now? No. Would i buy one if it came out? Yes. But that's me, I am not convinced others would follow. I always tend to be the first to buy. However, my hand are full this year and my budget only stretches so far. Vita is weeks away and Wii U is before years end.
. Anyone currently calling 3d a gimmick clearly hasnt experienced their games this way yet.
As far as graphics and power are concerned, I am satisfied with what i PS3. I am only now to the point of getting its full potential. I recently got a 3d TV and it made gaming a whole new experience
The only real wish i have for PS is cross-game chat. Maybe better use of PS Vita connectivity.
Sleepaphobic on 4 Feb '12 said:
AI
Physics
Graphics
a million hardware improvements
Online that doesn't suck
Sentinator on 4 Feb '12 said:
Well then he doesn't have to buy it when it comes does he? Seems like Sony are lagging behind a bit as is. The console will be there for those that want it. Come the end of next year, a LOT will want new consoles. Some have even argued they are overdue.
El Mag on 4 Feb '12 said:
He's going to be well p**sed off if it ends up being magic and comes with a lovable Mogwai like Gizmo.
Padua on 4 Feb '12 said:
I wouldn't call 3D a gimmick but it is still a niche.
Meanwhile HDTV isn't a niche but most games can't support 1080P
I think bringing out 3D for the PS3 was a little premature. If there wasn't a problem with the power then why aren't games like Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 running in 1080P? The next generation of consoles is going to be a perfect fit for 3D and 1080P. A typical high end gaming PC available today is what the PS4 (and 720) should be aiming to match.
Also, I don't even know why I want cross-game chat but it would be nice to finally tick that box too
Phaedros on 4 Feb '12 said:
Sorry but this is the dumbest thing ever written. We probably needed a PS4 last year. Consoles are holding graphics and gaming back more and more. I mean just look at the new graphics cards coming out and the new game engines. The PS3 can't do any of that.
lordirongut on 4 Feb '12 said:
The PS4 needs nothing more than to be easy to develop for. I don't care if the graphics are weaker than its rivals and the PC, I want a console that has lots of great games. For years the PS3 lacked that - making it cheap and easy to develop for from the get-go will ensure that doesn't happen again.
FunSponge on 4 Feb '12 said:
I really don't want to see a new console for at least another 2 years. Current gen is always improving with the latest releases and this is pretty clear with the Uncharted series, Mass Effect, Bioshock and many others. This gen has, without a doubt, produced some of the finest games I've ever played and not just in terms of graphics, storytelling has also vastly improved within games. Although I would really appreciate a bigger HDD for the PS3 as some of them game installs take up ridiculous amounts of memory.
PS3 and Xbox 360 still have so much to offer and with Sony now finally turning profits on each PS3 sold I can't see them releasing their next console anytime soon. Oh and yes I am aware Sony posted a loss of 1.2/3 billion but believe me they are making profit on each PS3 sold.
Multiplayerking on 4 Feb '12 said:
The PS4 should just have motion control.
Everyone loves motion control and it always has hardcore games.
Mmmmgrolsch on 4 Feb '12 said:
Yeah the Move controller should replace the Dualshock and that way everyone gets better controls rather than the people with brains. Plus that way we can be playing the next CoD and other shooters and footy games with more precise aim and fun.
Phaedros on 4 Feb '12 said:
The move...should...replace...the dualshock...? Err what?
TheLastDodo on 4 Feb '12 said:
Better web browser for a start and make it so it can be updated easily, whether thats in firmware or whatever.
Cross game chat - simply to shut everyone up that STILL keeps asking for it.
A reworked XMB, like it as it is but make it smoother and faster to load up in-game, why does it load up stuff that can't be accessed in-game anyway?
Competitive pricing with XBLA or at least the US PS Store.
Cloud storage, automatic patch downloader as default.
Every PSN game to have a mandatory demo on release.
Completely rework PS Plus - Day one discounts as standard on PSN titles, free movie rentals, make Plus the only way to access beta's, all first party titles DLC included with sub.
Just throwing ideas out.
gillri on 4 Feb '12 said:
well they arent because developers make games more and more to run on mid end laptops, maybe to later be converted to smartphone. Development cost are only gonna get higher next gen which means more likehood of companies going out of business
I agree with the article, Uncharted 3 and the last of us look incredible, on 6 year old hardware
I guess if you have that pc mentality of always wanting the latest hardware, which is just stupid because PC's hardware doesnt even become close to being fully utilised and then new hardware comes out and then......upgrade your PC just to move on to more hardware that never comes close to being fully utilised
Sleepaphobic on 4 Feb '12 said:
Almost all of those could/should be done right now, it's just up to Sony to catch up with the world.
Beebop10 on 4 Feb '12 said:
It's funny how those lucky enough to have the option to play on either console or a higher end PC invariably opt for their PC . Things like, high fps with high detail textures, realtime GI lighting etc., do matter to player experience and that's with the current ports. So imagine how much those things will matter on games designed from the ground up for the next gen.
Anyone who has seen a good pre-rendered 'CGI' game trailer usually thinks , oh , that's all well and good, but I wish games looked more like that in real-time. Look what Epic did with the Samaritan demo, many are still blown away that that was in real-time, rendered as it was, by a current gen intel i7 cpu and tri-sli 580 graphics cards .
TheLastDodo on 4 Feb '12 said:
Oh I agree, it's just not going to happen now, they're too busy "not working" on the PS4
.
TheCrimsonFenix on 4 Feb '12 said:
There are very few games that get my attention these days which actually feel like the sort of video game that kept me playing years ago, so I see little in the way of anything next gen that would make the purchase worthwhile. Games have been getting worse each year with only a select few that are worth picking up (in my opinion) and the direction the industry has been heading since this gen with shorter less replayable games, half the package being sold separately in form of DLC, online multiplayer focus and trying to get even more attention from the mainstream by being played a little now and then by celebrities.. I really can't see there being anything in my eyes that is "traditional" to me and anything that actually focusses on the games themselves instead of extra functions that sound like they should instead be on a mobile phone app list. Obviously there will be select titles that are worth playing like there has been with this gen but until they actually come out and in enough numbers instead of the same shooters with fancier graphics but pretty much the same gameplay (even if it is spruced up with physics), I'll definitely be waiting and not getting too excited.
Sleepaphobic on 4 Feb '12 said:
STE MO on 4 Feb '12 said:
PS4 "NEEDS" to come with a lightsaber that's the only way it could out do a George Foreman!
ps3james on 4 Feb '12 said:
Not only that... But the limits of the PS3 have not been reached. Why create a better performing console when you haven't used up your current level of performance??? I think the PS4 should hold off for a couple more years.
Check out my other posts at http://bestps3movegames.com/.
ps3james on 4 Feb '12 said:
The Playstation 4 is going to be the biggest, best performing game console ever designed. I can't wait.
http://playstation4reviews.net
Padua on 4 Feb '12 said:
Didn't they say that about the PS3? Yet it got blown away in sales by the Wii.
I wouldn't say it is particularly dominating the 360 either.
Although looking at the website - that design looks fabulous
gmcb007 on 4 Feb '12 said:
Funny CVg would say they're intrested about seeing what this gen still holds when recently they have not stopped going on about every-single-god-damm-mother-f**king-bulls**tting-made-up-s**t rumour that pops up about the '720' or 'PS4'.
bjjcjc on 4 Feb '12 said:
As far as the article goes, my answer to that as a console gamer is so what? Just don't but the PS4 then (at this point a talking meerkat with a polish accent would utter the word 'seemples').
There are gamers who are still perfectly comtempt to play 2D Mario with NES graphics, but thats no reason to hold back progress. And as for what the PS4 offer that the PS3 cant, er how about
- Hardware capable of running all games at a native 1080p resolution at a minimum of 60fps
- Cross game chat
- A hard disk drive that handle file sizes of greater than 4gb?
- A PSN that isn't offline for maintenance days/weeks at a time
- An architecture that doesn't bottleneck the capabilities of the system
- An FPS that can offer more than 24 players when playing online
Re the above quote, it isn't about the PC mentality though or having the latest and greatest. Look at the facts.
The XBox 360 and PS3 are six and seven years old respectively. Both have limitations unique to each console. Both are restricted by paltry amounts of RAM. I mean come on, even my HTC desire has more RAM than these consoles. In a nutshell, they're dinosaurs. If you leave that until 2015/2016 as some gamers are suggesting, that would leave ten and eleven years old, with an absolutely huge gap between these and PC.
You then also have the Wii U. Microsoft and Sony can harp on all they want about their consoles not competing with the Wii U. But when the Wii U is released, and you have a console on the market with considerably more power than the 360/PS3 offering graphically superior versions of the likes of Battlefield 3, or the latest Call of Duty games, make no mistake they are competing with each other, and the likes of Microsoft are not going to sit by idly and leave Nintendo unchallenged for up to two years (in the event of a 2014 release).
Whilst it may be in Sony's interest to hold off the PS3 as long as they can, they know they can't afford to launch 12 months behind microsoft, and there is no way that microsoft are going to leave the Wii U unchallenged for the best part of 2 years.
mogwatch on 4 Feb '12 said:
I think Sony's losses incorporated the whole company, not the games division solely. Their losses are mainly to do with being out muscled in the electronics side of the corporation (mobiles,TVs etc) and the earthquake in Japan did them no favours!
I agree with you about not wanting to see a new console for a while. I have an X-box 360, PS3, PC and various handhelds (plus a s**t load of old consoles) I really don't have the pennies to buy a new console and build up another games library yet. All these peeps wanting their next console to be like a high end PC, should just buy a frickin high end PC!
TheLastDodo on 4 Feb '12 said:
2009: Killzone 2 - 32 players
2008: Resistance 2 - 60 players
2010: M.A.G - 256 players
If you're gonna talk crap, do your research first
vitorfernandes83 on 4 Feb '12 said:
People that say there's no need for a new generation of consoles should get their eyes checked, or maybe buy a tv bigger than 24inch.
I am seeing now almost the same graphics as 5 years ago, which were already outdated,, while my brother is having gorgeous, beautifull visuals on his PC with no slowdowns, no jaggies, no screen tearing, no pop up textures and so on
Chris_Shanahan87 on 4 Feb '12 said:
no, they are not.
vitorfernandes83 on 4 Feb '12 said:
Believe me, if I lived in a fixed location I'd build a PC just for games, as I never stay in one place more than 2/3 years, I prefer to have a laptop. Last year I built a top end PC and had to sell it 2 months later, and believe me, is not very easy to sell a PC unless you want to loose real money. In fact, it is maybe 20/30 times easier to sell a laptop or console nowadays. Plus you can just take them in your bag.
Mmmmgrolsch on 4 Feb '12 said:
Resistance 1 - 40 players.
lordirongut on 4 Feb '12 said:
What is so bad about current generation graphics? They look damn fine to me. I'm playing SoulCalibur V and it looks really very beautiful indeed.
gmcb007 on 4 Feb '12 said:
Nothing at all. People just think by some magic that this next gen will make every game perfect in every way.
Sleepaphobic on 5 Feb '12 said:
If it is able to make games look as good as my PC plays now or even a few years back then I'd consider that a gigantic leap forward. I dare any1 here to play on PC then go back to console games (Even Uncharted) and say they are cutting edge or even bearable.
TheLastDodo on 5 Feb '12 said:
I can honestly say I can play iPhone games then go back to my PS3 with no trouble at all.
Gimme a decent looking fun game over a gorgeous looking crap game anyday.
Most people play for fun, not for fancy graphics.
TheCrimsonFenix on 5 Feb '12 said:
If the next gen is only able to do that, bring games on the same level as those on PC which aren't even cutting edge or that great themselves, I'll give it a miss. It would be a late small hop rather than a gigantic leap to just make games in full HD at 60fps with nicer textures.
1Nightmare1 on 5 Feb '12 said:
There is a crapload of things that next gen consoles can offer that PS 3 can't. MMOs that don't suck and multiplayer games that can hold more players like 1942/BF3's 64, graphics that support Direct 11X or even 12X, less bottlenecking unlike with the puny ram that current consoles have, superior AI and physics, and lots of more feature that we probably never even heard off. Current gen consoles are far from hitting the plateau in gaming technology, very far.
SatoriSatya on 5 Feb '12 said:
Whoever says that needs to play Skyrim on the PS3.
After dealing with a Powerpoint like framerate, he/she will be begging Sony to give them the PS4 as soon as possible.
Sentinator on 5 Feb '12 said:
HAHA! Perhaps you missed the part where Kaz said they aren't going for the high end products they are known for because keeping the company afloat is more important. I know what PS4 will be. Hint: it involves two PS3s and duct tape
@ bjj I agree. I think Sony is in a pickle with this one. They definitely want to wait to launch PS4 but most likely MS is launching late next year. If they leave it too long they will be too late. I didn't realise PS3 was still causing them problems. They said it was profitable already I seem to remember.
As for Nintendo "competing" I think it goes in two ways. Yes they are competing for market share but I'm not too sure the bigwigs at Nintendo care if some people don't buy Wii U. They have built Wii U from the feedback they received on Wii. From both consumers and developers. I think they are trying to aim it at both casuals and their core fanbase. But it is possible they will turn some of the others who believe they aren't going to buy it towards them. The more the merrier after all. But I think Nintendo is working on it's own feet and trying to get their fans back. If they win over anyone else its just a bonus. Thats how I see it.
verynaughtyboy on 5 Feb '12 said:
Quite funny that, it totally changes the meaning. "I will play this game with contempt!"
@SatoriSatya
That was a programming issue, not a hardware issue.
bjjcjc on 5 Feb '12 said:
Sorry, my bad, completely forgot about them, damn battlefield
cjw101 on 5 Feb '12 said:
Eh? Do you plaster your PC in to the wall or something? Moving a desktop every 2-3 years is not a problem - I used to move mine to Uni and back 3 times a year...
bjjcjc on 5 Feb '12 said:
This gen, it has largely been a case of for party/family games, nintendo first party titles, and low res versions of the likes of Call of Duty, get a Wii, for a machine with more horsepower and better online play, 360 or PS3.
But until the next get XBox and Playstation are released, the Wii U will be competing with what's out there, and if in December we see a Wii U that can offer full online play with cross game chat, and (love it or hate it) a graphically superior version of Black Ops 2, Microsoft and Sony can no longer use the more power/online play/Wii U is a kiddies console arguments as a selling point of the 360 or PS3 over Nintendo. I really cannot see both Microsoft or Sony letting that go unchallenged for over 12 months.
Nintendo has also seemingly stuck to the 5-6 year lifecycle so far (N64 in 1996, GC in 2001, Wii in 2006, Wii U in 2012)
VR-4nic on 5 Feb '12 said:
Anyone that thinks 3D is a gimmick obviously has not experienced it or when they did it was setup wrong or under bad conditions, like in the store. A darker setting is always a good thing with 3D. I recently was able to get the PS 3D monitor at a really good price of $299 with a set of 3D glasses, HDMI cable, and the game Motor Storm Apocalypse. Any similar screen from any other maker would easily run around $400 and would not come with all the extras. Now granted this is only a 24" screen but after spending just a few minutes playing Uncharted 3 I could easily see the benefits of 3D in gaming and was wowed by the graphics. I would have to say 3D makes more sense for games then it even does for movies or TV because now you can really get a sense of where you are in comparison to the thing around you and it totally improves the look of every game. I can only imagine how awesome 3D would be on a much bigger screen, but the fact that its this good for just $299 is promising. I believe 3D will be standard for all games on PS4 and the nex gen Xbox and I welcome that, hopefully by then a nice 46" LED 3D HDTV will be under a $1000 and be standard in all new TV's.
moogiesboy on 5 Feb '12 said:
I've returned to ps3 from pc gaming and you're right - to a certain extent. The lack of resolution thing takes a while to readjust to. But fades. I don't even notice any more.
Yes the pc has the best hardware - but I went back to PS3 cos all the best, most talented & artistic, people are developing for consoles. It's just were the money is I'm afraid.
Picking up on uncharted 3 - how can u say uc3 doesn't cut it? The art direction of that game blows 99% of pc games outta the water. It really doesn't even need dx11 visuals & full 1080p res. If it had them; I think my eyes would actually explode.
Pc is good and fine - but I quickly found A) upgrading - is a habit like crack coccain - you'll never satify it & B) you'll get no love back from the development industry; those guys effing hate pc gamers.
Back with ps3 - getting vita too - and actually really happy with it. No need for ps4 to be rushed. take ya time Sony - get it right
Paul_27 on 5 Feb '12 said:
sony wont release there new console till after 2016 due to the high debts they have and need to pay of but in the long run it will damper sales on there next console as xbox 720 is out in a year or 2 and wii u is out this xmas
kbekl on 5 Feb '12 said:
what do i want from the ps4, haow about a console that can deal with heat,
i have all 4 consoles but the only one working still is the xbox
gone through 1 wii due to the drive went thro 3 ps3's all due ylod (and no they wernt in a hot room or in an enclosed area) and never really gamed on them maily in the bedroom watching netflix
if a pc can handle the heat of gaming 24/7 and still work a year latter why can the consoles
wont be purchasing a ps4 at all as we all know they will be built with crappy components
bjjcjc on 5 Feb '12 said:
I can definitely agree with some of the points here, even though I have temporarily gone the other way. I bought a 360 XMas 2010 (my 3rd one) but soon got very tired of it, so decided to switch to a PS3. However I soon got very bored of this. Whilst I won't deny for a second the unchartered games are a thing of beauty, especially unchartered 3, I personally couldn't get into it.
I bought a powerful rig for photoshop/video transcoding, and it had a semi decent graphics card (NVidia GTX 460 2GB) so my plan at the moment, unless the Wii U comes out with some decent games, is to just get the odd PC game to tide me over to the new consoles. I was looking into 'upgrading' the gpu as such although this is more to do with the fact that the card I have is quite noisy, and some of the MSI cards are somewhat quieter.
Sleepaphobic on 5 Feb '12 said:
Again, look at the differences and say that with a straight face. I know people expect much more and I did as well but looking at how everybody is trying to stop losing money now I'd consider that a very respectable performance increase. Oh and dx11 plz!!!!
I also wonder how much an increase in power would help with AI. Would devs even bother making the AI smarter than bricks?
Sleepaphobic on 5 Feb '12 said:
Personally without a proper res and AA any game looks harsh. Uncharted has good animations (For Drake at least) and lighting but it's not even close to reaching it's potential. The textures are also very iffy and need a lot of work. That's what I think at least.
Sleepaphobic on 5 Feb '12 said:
My PC is air cooled with a heatsink and 2 120mm fans in a push pull config, that's all thicker than the consoles themselves! Using thermal paste that's not crap also helps. Point is that consoles have to cut corners otherwise we'd get consoles costing a lot more and the size of a small elephant.
kbekl on 5 Feb '12 said:
ok cause water cooling is about £20 more expensive to the consumer, bet it cost ms & sony pennies
even with stock coolers on all items the pc/mac handles heat a whole lot better
my htpc ok is slightly larger than a xbox 360 but it cost less to build than a current xbox or ps3 (not including os that is but then linux is free)
the problem is and always will be money they know people will buy the next console no matter how crap it is built we all know that, but every one just falls over each other to get the latest unit not caring how long it will last, because if it breaks you will buy another one.
come on how many on this site have actually purchased a new console when their's broke just because the machine wasnt fit for purpose, if people in the uk learned their rights they would have sony over a barrel as well as ms with the soga (sale of goods act) remember that the life of the machine should out live their expected life span so the first ps3's and 360's should still be working fine and if it isnt then get a hold of a bank statement / receipt from when you first purchased the machine (as long as it isnt past 6 years ago) and get your self a nice new ps3 or 360 and if they dont give one over go to court and get a refund.
wickedproxy on 5 Feb '12 said:
I was happier when the PS3 first came out. Back then it was backwards compatible, had Other OS and several card readers. The 60 GB was the best model they made. I hope they have learned that having features and then taking them away is NOT a good business practice. That aside the improvements that are needed are more ram and a new browser. Almost everybody has dropped support for the PS3's browser. Google chrome would be a good match for it as long as they allow the updates that google does to go through.
lordirongut on 5 Feb '12 said:
People are willing to buy consoles because they have two things that PCs lack - widespread developer support and less bulls**t associated with them. No matter which way you spin it, it's just a fact that far, far, far more studios support consoles over PC, and then when you get a PC conversion half the time it's a bad port of a game that runs great on console. The BS that accompanies PC titles is immense - buy a PS3 and you know that every box that says 'PS3' on it will have something that works - that same luxury isn't extended to PC users who need to check system requirements and then check to see what settings they can afford. When people cry PC they just assume that every PC is innately superior out of the box when that's just untrue. People say how much better Battlefield 3 is, but the fact is that most can't afford a PC that will make Battlefield 3 look better than the £150 Xbox 360. You also have the crap associated with DRM - sure, consoles have online passes, but that's got nothing on the likes of what Ubisoft put on their PC titles - hope you didn't plan on playing Assassin's Creed next week!
And FYI, the only console I've ever had to replace was an original model PS2 that I got a good six years out of. My PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, DS, &c have never once failed me. A Home Theater PC will never stand up to a PS3 or 360 graphically (certainly not at the size you say it is). I'm gonna go back and happily play on that replacement PS2 I bought.
jwhyrock on 5 Feb '12 said:
I can't believe these jokers can actually say they're not ready for new technology. Enjoy the stone age you backward 90 year olds.
The PS3 didn't have top tier hardware when it came out SIX YEARS AGO!!
Get a frickin' clue. Or better yet get computer literate so you know what the hell you're talking about. Anybody who has built their own pc and/or upgraded their rig knows that all console hardware is outdated. They are short changed on RAM, CPU, hard drive (I know you can swap it out), and features. Many developers have complained about system limitations already (GT5 ring a bell?).
It's one thing to say "I'm easily amused and don't care about new technology, progress or bigger and better" but it's a completely different and extremely ignorant thing to say the market and gamers don't need current hardware.
We are long overdue for a new console.
jwhyrock on 5 Feb '12 said:
9 out of 10 times you hear someone say 3D is a gimmick they have never seen 3D outside of a s**tty Disney movie in the theater. 3D is amazing if properly set up which luckily in my case I do.
vitorfernandes83 on 5 Feb '12 said:
Yes, it is very easy to take your PC in your suitcase to go to another country, with the limits of 20kg and all, I'd better throw away my clothes and all to make space. Actually I have to congratulate Nintendo because the Wii is the only console light and small enough. But I don't mind selling my ps3 and buy another and so on. I just get very jealous when my brother is playing on his top end PC
vitorfernandes83 on 5 Feb '12 said:
Everyone said the same with PS2, nobody needs a PS3, can skyrim run on a PS2? People are closed minded, having better hardware leads to much more possibilities, you think you have good graphics? You will only have good graphics one day when you are able to play with the visuals of the Avatar movie. Just let technology advance as fast as it can. You can keep your beloved ps3, just let the rest of us have something always better.
lordirongut on 5 Feb '12 said:
Morrowind ran quite happily on the original Xbox and that does everything Skyrim does. The jump from PS1 to PS2 was quite big - new possibilities arose all over. But the jump from PS2 to PS3 wasn't so, and the jump from PS3 to PS4 will be even smaller. There are very few gameplay concepts employed today that couldn't have run on the PS2, GameCube or original Xbox, especially on the latter. The only thing a PS4 could really offer would be better picture quality, and that's the entire crux of this argument - PS3 can do 256-player multiplayer, it can do expansive worlds, it can do what PCs can do. The only things a PC really offer are a wider choice of inputs and smoother graphics, and with that last point you have to pay considerably more to get them. That's fine for the people who want them, but most are happy paying less for the easy-to-use, affordable, better supported and equally functional PS3 and 360, even if their picture quality is scaled down a bit.
I guess I'm a 110 year old then because I still play SNES games
- most are evidently happy with the PS3 and 360, otherwise they wouldn't sell in their millions each year and people wouldn't buy the millions and millions of games that they do. I have built my own PC and upgraded it, and I now that consoles represent good value for money. Yes, they get less RAM than PCs, and older graphics cards and processors, but all that is wildly irrelevant. The fact is that on 256mb of RAM the PS3 can stand toe-to-toe with and outperform the vast majority of PCs when you consider that not every PC has a f**king GTX590 sat inside it. A desktop that could outperform the PS3 would also cost considerably more than it. That's money that could be spent on games. And then as I said above consoles don't have the BS that PCs have associated with them in terms of tech specs, upgrading and, most importantly, DRM. The PS3, on its 3.2ghz PowerPC Processor, modified GeForce 7800 processor and 256mb of RAM will comfortably outperform anything similarly priced, and it will be capable of performing the exact same feats that a supercomputer could perform (albeit with toned-down graphics). PS3 and Xbox 360 still give out amazing graphics and gameplay experiences. I refer back to SoulCalibur V which looks absolutely stunning. It's ridiculous to think that everyone wants a new console - if they wanted better graphics than the current generation offers then there simply wouldn't be millions of people logging into PSN and Xbox Live on a daily basis. There really isn't a point in a new machine when everything the next generation would offer is offered already.
Sleepaphobic on 5 Feb '12 said:
Water cooling won't happen. Those closed system are not even as good as the top air coolers and proper water cooling needs crazy maintenance. There are few other factors but ya if I can run my CPU with a 100% OC for 24hrs on air then the consoles should be able to cool a chip at stock no probs. If not then ya it's built like crap (Which is pretty much the case).
Ur totally right abt people just buying new consoles. Would anybody buy anything else 3+ times because it always broke?
Tell that to Skyrim or pretty much any mp game
I get your point but tbh you don't really need to know cli commands to fix anything. Btw I don't think this was a PC is better argument just that consoles are in dire need of an upgrade.
Reegeee on 5 Feb '12 said:
I agree that a new gen now wouldn't really change that much noticeably really. Yeah, better graphics but really not 'wow' better as they are pretty good as it is.
At the same time though you are always going to get opinions like that from me cos I remember the massive difference between the NES/Master System to the SNES/Megadrive to the N64/PS1/Dreamcast. They seemed like massive jumps at the time, but now everything seems more gradual because everything is so good already. We aren't talking about, 256 colours, parallax scrolling, mode 7 or the jump to 3d anymore. It's pretty much maxed out and so progress is either just to make things look incrementally more life like or to offer a new kind of immersion.
ricflair on 6 Feb '12 said:
Bang on reeg, the differences have got smaller and smaller for me too.
Of course we will get more than just graphics on the new consoles, but really I think it comes down to what people are satisfied with and cost issues - some people really don't care about having 64+ mulitplayer or 1080+ over 720p as it makes little difference to the actual games. PCs and consoles, although they play loads of the same games, really operate from totally different places, with PC's ability to upgrade, keep playing your older games and scaling the graphics being the key things as I see them.
I've said it before, if I could pay a reasonable amount of money, say £100 or so, and stick some RAM chip/processor type thing in my PS3/360 and it upscaled all games to 1080p (although to be honest, I game on my PC at 1050 and I can't say I care when I go back to 720p on my PS3/360), had hardware AA and improved the frame rate of games that run as they currently do on the consoles, I'd do it.
Saying the new generation of consoles won't offer more is short sighted, but than spouting some nonsense about how much better PCs are is equally silly. Graphically they are but they may not suit people's needs, money doesn't have to even come in to it. If I had the space/setup to have my PC set up to a TV, then maybe I'd game more on my PC, but the main reason I play primarily on consoles is the games - Bayonetta, Vanquish, RDR, plus your console exclusives just make the console my platform of choice.
AJDarkstar on 6 Feb '12 said:
I'd go for SATA II & III HDD & SSD support, native 1080p output (using a dedicated core on a dual-core GPU so the other core can worry about polygons and textures and such), BDXL (or whatever they called it - the 128GB one) support (and faster than 2x speed), PS2 BC restored, PS1 BC to render games like BleemCast (remember seeing MGS on that thing?) and quad-channel RAM (4 1GB modules would exchange data faster than a single 4GB or even 2 2GB ones). Oh, and I would suggest allowing the GPU to talk directly to the RAM, but that would be "borrowing" from Nintendo again.
On second thoughts, I'll be happy with the Wii U for quite some time, given my limited free time these days.
illage2 on 6 Feb '12 said:
I agree the new consoles are coming way too soon. Yes I would buy them, but before hand think about it. You buy the new consoles now and the year after they release a slim version ...
I am not getting the new Wii. I have lost faith in nintendo since the Wii and DS came out. They said they are getting better 3rd party support .... hahah and people actually believed them? Nintendo said the Wii sold well because of Casual gaming, which is a load of s**t. The wii only sold well because it was the cheapest console at £180 on release, now the price of a wii has been jacked up to £270 in some stores making it the most expensive console on the market. I can forsee the new Wii being more than £250 on release and like the cooperate drones the so called "pro" gamers are, they'll buy one for bragging rights.
Why am I even calling the Wii a "Console" it's not, it's a childrens toy.
havoc33 on 6 Feb '12 said:
This. I am more than happy with the current graphics, and when I hear the amounts of money my mate spends on his desktop, only to play a handful of games in very limited selection of genres, I can't help think to how great it is to be a console gamer. And more powerful hardware does not mean better games. Compare Xenoblade Chronicles to FFXIII and tell me which has the most enjoyable and immersive world.
kbekl on 6 Feb '12 said:
i am not saying pc's are better, but they are lol, just better built, reguards to development for the pc why do you think it is lacking? could it be because people are willing to pay more for a console version than they are for the pc version ?
but then what does the 360 cost you a year to run ? that £150 console just went up and then all the games you need to pay extra for, ok you play bf3 i prefer the witcher myself including the free dlc.
i have the consoles but dont choose them over the pc, all run off the same tv with the same controls in the same chair, i have the conoles for the kids and also the odd exclusive, the ps3 is underwelming even with its exclusive and also so very very slow, people need to purchase they entertainment properly instead of choosing somthing that has a fancy package or well known name.
now i cant belive a stock launch ps3 is still running fully and has never been opened and used primarily as a gaming unit, the cheap arsed heat sink paste would handle it.
actually as we delve into the ease of getting in a playing a game my pc will start say mass effect 2 from idle quicker than the ps3 and the xbox even if i use the launch screen to max out the settings, also never had a problem installing a game and playing said in under 10 min can you do the same with the xbox or ps3 and that means install it.
look i think people have gone off topic a little, but if i am to purchase the ps4 or the xbox 720 for that matter it better be built with decent quality parts and expected to live longer than the life span they have planned for them, bloody hell my old spectrum zx is still working.
ms and sony have dropped the ball with the ps3 and 360 if you could upgrade them then you would still have a long life with them but you cant yet in say 5 years time i can keep my pc with nice new shiny bits in place and not loose a single game save and still be able to play games from the 90's without any real issues even if i have to dual boot with xp
yes i will get the new consoles but if it fails when doing what it is supposed to do then i will never purchase another one and all consoles will be sold and kids will have gaming pc's.
jwhyrock on 6 Feb '12 said:
Am I the only person who sees that current console graphics are dated? Frame rate issues? Anyone? seriously wtf?
I mean anyone who is telling me there won't be a giant leap in quality of gameplay and visual display on a system that is at least twice as powerful as current gen consoles is deluding themselves. Hey if you're poor and can't afford a new system that's a valid argument from a "consumer" standpoint, however, complete and utter bulls**t (or b*****ks as this is a british site right?) from a technical perspective. The RAM deficiency alone has a GIANT negative impact on everything from frame rate to us poor PS3 bastards who wouldn't mind shooting the s**t verbally with friends via party chat once in a while.
When developers are saying they have to cut content, cut corners and do a worse job than they would like to (as many developers are already on the record as saying) just to get a game to run decently your hardware is outdated. Whoever made the ridiculous Morrowind vs. Skyrim comment umm what? Set those two games side by side. One is ugly as sin compared to the other. No I'm not talking Skyim and I loved Morrowind. I have every major system from Atari 2600 through PS3 (excluding 360 & Wii) and know first hand what progress looks like from a console vs. PC perspective. I also was lucky enough to have a computer in the house growing up and was happily playing DOS text games on a monochrome monitor. I think I have a pretty fair and realistic point of view toward technological advancement.
Is the PS3 capable of producing games we will continue to enjoy? Yes. Would a far more powerful system rock our f**king worlds with what it would be capable of producing? Absolutely. Imagine the next Grand Theft game, Uncharted game, Deus Ex, DARK SOULS!, anything that we love right now and then double the processing power, RAM and add other cool "current" features and you have yourself a relevant rig.
The only people poo-pooing new technology either have little or no exposure to hardware advancement or are against it for other reasons such as they don't want to shell out money, are worried that developers won't be able to utilize hardware (which is always the case in the very beginning with new tech), or are so ignorantly happy that they'd be as pleased playing Mario Kart in standard definition on a tube TV as they are playing Uncharted 3 in 3D on a 61+inch flat screen TV (oh wait they don't have a big giant TV, 3D or anything decent hence why they are arguing against the future).
Play your fricking Runescape on your lameass computer from 1996 and let the big boys have relevant hardware to enjoy with backward compatibility to play all the backward, old PS3 games if we're bored.