Why the next generation needs more than just 'good graphics'

Show Topics In:
Posted 6:09pm on Wed 17 July 2013
VG_Staff
  • Posts: 29,697
00
Why the next generation needs more than just 'good graphics'
Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

Read the full article
Posted 6:09pm on Wed 17 July 2013
Weasel_Pants
  • Posts: 50
00
In response to Topic
Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
what will drive people to buy different consoles will be a mixture of exclusives and what your mates have. i went for xbox this gen since it had halo, but all my mates went with ps3 because one person had fifa or cod on ps3, and they all wanted to play together.

on topic, ive never hugely understood the importance of photorealism. yes its impressive, but we have real life for that. there are so many resources being pumped into replicating instead of innovating (hate that word), and that goes for the entire industry at the moment.
Posted 12:13pm on Thu 18 July 2013
IronMit
  • Posts: 94
00
In response to Topic
Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Whilst the next gen does need more then just good graphics....it will still give us improved graphics and we will demand it ;
Claiming graphics are not the most important next step doesn't mean much. Because when it comes to sales, reviews, marketing and what consumers buy it is quite important. The market is competitive and no publisher wants their competitors game to look better then theirs. First impressions count and having to explain that your game is better in other area's because you didn't focus on unnecessary graphics means you are already playing catch-up.

I keep seeing Xbox's epic marketing failure being simplified to 'the failure stems from a you must like it' mentality.
This digital blitzkrieg from xbox partly failed because xbox were not willing to let the retailers go, so they decided to integrate some sort of weird physical copies are now licences nonsense. A natural transition from physical to digital is pretty easy to do; just make digital more attractive. Just like netflix, steam, love film, kindle. But then the highstreet retailers will flop and the consoles aren't ready for that.
Xbone's little digital revolution is really on stand by because MS wanted the best of both worlds. They were trying to transfer the cost of all those problems during the physical-digital transitional period onto the consumer whilst bleeding them of every penny. You would think when changing the system you may consider forgoing short-term profits for the long term benefits of getting ahead of your competition.
I conclude MS's plan A failed because Xbox themselves aren't really ready for digital.
Posted 3:53pm on Thu 18 July 2013
mcnasty72
  • Posts: 13
00
In response to Topic
Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Stop falling for these old "Jedi mind tricks". As a PC gamer I have NEVER heard any player state "Man, ARMA II would be really good if it could connect with Facebook". Or "LFD2 is lacking Google+ Hangout integration, that's why I didn't buy it." These are marketing suggestions to get you to purchase $500 dollars worth of old hardware that will be out of date next year by PC terms. No real gamer cares about social integration, it's a ploy that no one cares about. What we really care about is freedom, not locking out the mod community, and not having these "walled gardens" that you console fools relish so much. So I'm going to buy 500 dollars worth of hardware so I can play Halo for 40 hours total?
Think about it for a minute why would a 3RD party developer want to limit the number of people that could buy his title? That would be like Coke Cola deciding only to sell their products at Koger. Those titles developed in house are cool but for my money I need solid titles from a plethora of developers not just MS pimping out Halo year after year, (yeah you can change the name MS, but it's still Halo fellas!).
Posted 5:33pm on Thu 18 July 2013
DancingRhino
    00
    In response to Topic
    Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

    Read the full article

    » Go to VG_Staff's original post
    Me like shiny bang bang!
    Posted 6:13pm on Thu 18 July 2013
    Endless
    • Posts: 4,515
    00
    In response to mcnasty72's
    Stop falling for these old "Jedi mind tricks". As a PC gamer I have NEVER heard any player state "Man, ARMA II would be really good if it could connect with Facebook". Or "LFD2 is lacking Google+ Hangout integration, that's why I didn't buy it." These are marketing suggestions to get you to purchase $500 dollars worth of old hardware that will be out of date next year by PC terms. No real gamer cares about social integration, it's a ploy that no one cares about. What we really care about is freedom, not locking out the mod community, and not having these "walled gardens" that you console fools relish so much. So I'm going to buy 500 dollars worth of hardware so I can play Halo for 40 hours total?
    Think about it for a minute why would a 3RD party developer want to limit the number of people that could buy his title? That would be like Coke Cola deciding only to sell their products at Koger. Those titles developed in house are cool but for my money I need solid titles from a plethora of developers not just MS pimping out Halo year after year, (yeah you can change the name MS, but it's still Halo fellas!).

    » Go to mcnasty72's original post
    That's all fine and dandy for people like us that are comfortable having the freedom. But as Apple has been proving for years now: People can't be trusted with freedom on their devices. And more to the point the masses don't like the freedom, it gives them too many options, options they'd rather have someone just decide for them so they dont have to worry about it.

    The biggest benefit of closed systems IS the lack of freedom. The knowledge that when you turn your device on you dont have to worry about driver updates, anti-virus, system updates, licence renewals, file and user management. All your peripherals are decided for you and custom built for the hardware. Even the community tools like friends, matchmaking, leaderboards etc are all decided for you and pretty much guaranteed to work no matter what game you play. All under one umbrella, all linked across all games regardless of developer. A consistent environment is a developers dream.

    Games announced for PS4 and Xbox One have been possible on PC for ages, but no-body made them. Why do you think that is? Surely if PC environment was so much better and free from the shackles you so proclaim are present on consoles, everything would start there and be ported to consoles, not the other way round? Likely because there's more of a market for closed system consoles than open source PCs. You ask why a developer would 'limit' the number of people their title goes out to? Answer: They aren't. They release them for the platforms with the most users. And that just isnt PCs.

    Social integration also has it's place where your target market uses it. Again, PC gaming isnt that market.
    Posted 6:33pm on Thu 18 July 2013
    mcnasty72
    • Posts: 13
    00
    In response to Topic
    Michel Ancel isn't particularly bothered about the next-generation's focus on realistic graphics. And neither, for the most part, is Steve.

    Read the full article

    » Go to VG_Staff's original post
    McNasty72 @ Endless

    Simply put consoles are more popular because they used by a less demanding less informed consumer. Consoles maximize profitability for companies, they offer shorter development cycles (the hardware is the same), no demo or preview, a subscribed install base, which adds to the bottom line. PC gaming required developers to "work" to make their code efficient. But the ones the do the work are rewarded, take Quake, Wow, StarCraft, etc. The sad fact is that console offer an easier path recycled, get rich quick possibilities (exclusives from 3rd parties are paydays for that 3rd party), eight month development cycles with reduced costs. The sad fact is that the amount of cash being thrown around by MS & Sony is ruining gaming like it does everything else. But as a PC gamer, I will sit by and wait for your wall gardens to 'crash' again. We will still be here, I don't need MS or Sony to release hardware in order to play games.
    Show Topics In:
    Quick Reply

    Login or register to reply to this topic

    Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.
    View Full Site