Gaming News

Mickeroo

I hope they stick to the Pro/X way of doing things. I don't really buy the notion of the older hardware holding them back, it's never been an issue on PC. Would be great to be able to keep the game library going forward. I don't think they'd go to all this effort of making games backwards compatible if they weren't planning on going this route either.

Penn

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't really buy the notion of the older hardware holding them back, it's never been an issue on PC.

PC is completely different though. You have minimum specification requirements for the game to run properly, and it's up to the player to make sure their PC is capable of playing it (and upgrade parts as required). As games get bigger in scale and graphics etc, older PCs can no longer play them.

With consoles, all games released have to be playable on that console. The onus isn't on the player to make sure their console can play the game, it's on the developers and Sony/MS. There are no min. system requirements, all PS4 games have to work on all PS4s. But as games continue to get bigger in scale and graphics etc, the base consoles of this gen will no longer be capable of playing them. So we either limit games to what the base consoles now can do with new iterations of the consoles only providing graphical/performance upgrades, or go with next-gen consoles (preferably with backwards compatibility both in terms of disks and digital library) with PS5/XB? games which aren't limited to the PS4/XB1 launch console architecture.

Varik

Mickeroo wrote: »

I hope they stick to the Pro/X way of doing things. I don't really buy the notion of the older hardware holding them back, it's never been an issue on PC. Would be great to be able to keep the game library going forward. I don't think they'd go to all this effort of making games backwards compatible if they weren't planning on going this route either.

Wouldn't say I want the pro/X, would like a single sku/library but some games being on the PS5 only would be for the best.

I want the console to be backwards compatible but the games only to a point. So for the likes of Fifa 20 having a shared playerbase, and a single sku but after a few iterations we start to get a separate one or they drop the PS4/PRO. It's just a more defined cut off point rather than a fuzzy advancing minimum/recommended spec.

Mitch Connor

heebusjeebus wrote: »

They've already been burned twice by EA. Being limited to XBox for TF1 and then TF2 released in the busiest time of the year.
Madness

RIP Respawn.

Well, I suppose it depends what they want from life, and what they get from the deal?

They may have just set themselves, and their families up for generations with the money from selling the company to EA.

I'm sure they will have some management lock-in in the sale, so they can't just leave immediately, but if the company goes a way they have no interest in, at some point down the line they will be free to move on and create a new company should they wish to.

From a creative stand point it may be crap - but from a monetary/life perspective it could be the best thing that has ever happened to them.

Mickeroo

Penn wrote: »

PC is completely different though. You have minimum specification requirements for the game to run properly, and it's up to the player to make sure their PC is capable of playing it (and upgrade parts as required). As games get bigger in scale and graphics etc, older PCs can no longer play them.

With consoles, all games released have to be playable on that console. The onus isn't on the player to make sure their console can play the game, it's on the developers and Sony/MS. There are no min. system requirements, all PS4 games have to work on all PS4s. But as games continue to get bigger in scale and graphics etc, the base consoles of this gen will no longer be capable of playing them. So we either limit games to what the base consoles now can do with new iterations of the consoles only providing graphical/performance upgrades, or go with next-gen consoles (preferably with backwards compatibility both in terms of disks and digital library) with PS5/XB? games which aren't limited to the PS4/XB1 launch console architecture.

This just seems like an outdated way of thinking to me. All they need is a cut off point for certain consoles, put a sticker on the box or mention in the ads "only recommended for PS4 Pro onwards" problem solved.

Penn

Mickeroo wrote: »

This just seems like an outdated way of thinking to me. All they need is a cut off point for certain consoles, put a sticker on the box or mention in the ads "only recommended for PS4 Pro onwards" problem solved.

The issue there will be those who aren't gamers who'll inevitably buy the wrong games as presents etc. I know plenty in my own family who wouldn't know that you can't play Xbox games on a Playstation. Try putting them in front of Gamestop employee who is asking them if little Timmy has the Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X or Xbox One 1Xcubed.

And I agree it may be an outdated way of thinking, but that's because you'd be tying in to an existing console generation (one which started 4 years ago). I think if real change were to be made to how console generations usually happen, they would need to start fresh with the next gen and in a way where constant incremental upgrades or a modular console where parts can be upgraded going forward, needs to be planned in as part of the next gen. Trying to jump off the console ecosystem currently in place is just something I don't think would work.

kunst nugget

With digital sales taking up more of the market, this is going to be less of an issue. If you buy through the store on your console, you're not going to see the games that are incompatible with your set up.

Robert ninja

Mickeroo wrote: »

I hope they stick to the Pro/X way of doing things. I don't really buy the notion of the older hardware holding them back, it's never been an issue on PC.

Actually there's very few full feature games that have advanced very far in terms of graphics or computation since Crysis 1 and many RTS games like Supreme Commander. I think consoles have been holding back game potential for a long time when it comes to technology and it's ironic that people think the older consoles will hold back the newer ones when 8th gen was outdated upon release.

Shiminay

Robert ninja wrote: »

Actually there's very few full feature games that have advanced very far in terms of graphics or computation since Crysis 1 and many RTS games like Supreme Commander. I think consoles have been holding back game potential for a long time when it comes to technology and it's ironic that people think the older consoles will hold back the newer ones when 8th gen was outdated upon release.

This. Consoles have been holding games back for years.

Kiith

To be fair, devs have managed to make some amazing looking looking games on that outdated hardware. There have been plenty of times i with PC devs would put half as much effort into making their games run well on older hardware.

There's no question that from a technical pov though, they have held them back.

ERG89

How can people moan about gaming being held back in 2017?
:rolleyes:
F*cking loads of games to play, don't have near enough time to play half of them.
Most classic games even in recent years have never needed loads of horsepower or high res graphics.
Hearing Crysis being mentioned was funny though if thats potential to reach well :pac::pac:

Taylor365

Penn wrote: »

The issue there will be those who aren't gamers who'll inevitably buy the wrong games as presents

This happened to me, but it was PC.

Got MOHAA for PC as a bday present and didn't think nothing of it (being 13 years old). Thought my Pentium II gateway was the bees knees! Got home, installed it and when I went to run it, up popped an error message.

Luckily, staff in gamesworld let me trade it in, unluckily, for the ps2 equivalent which looked a lot worse.


Never made that mistake again.

Skerries

Kiith wrote: »

EA just bought Respawn. Guess that means Titanfall 3 won't happen, or will happen but will have loot boxes and season passes.

heebusjeebus

heebusjeebus wrote: »

They've already been burned twice by EA. Being limited to XBox for TF1 and then TF2 released in the busiest time of the year.
Madness

RIP Respawn.

Depressingly true. Titanfall 2 didn't get the promotion it deserved.
Lootboxes in Titanfall 3 confirmed

FAILSAFE 00

I'd be suspicious of EA motives since they choose to release TF2 when they did. Could they have been attempting to devalue Respawn before making an offer to acquire them.

gizmo

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I'd be suspicious of EA motives since they choose to release TF2 when they did. Could they have been attempting to devalue Respawn before making an offer to acquire them.

As above, Nexon were the ones who made the initial offer. Likely due to the existing contracts between the pair, EA were given the chance to match the offer which they did and went with.

Robert ninja

ERG89 wrote: »

How can people moan about gaming being held back in 2017?
:rolleyes:
F*cking loads of games to play, don't have near enough time to play half of them.
Most classic games even in recent years have never needed loads of horsepower or high res graphics.
Hearing Crysis being mentioned was funny though if thats potential to reach well :pac::pac:

Consoles used to be bleeding edge tech, the best you could get for a home experience and the games always pushed the limits of the hardware. 8th generation is absolutely complacent in its mediocrity with the PS4 & XBO releasing with about 2 years lag behind the current gaming hardware of its time.

This would be absolutely fine in a vacuum but the overwhelming majority of modern games use 8th gen as a base for their graphical and computational ambition. It's not exclusively a horsepower issue either, this can be seen in design choices and optimisation. The graphical and technical options available in multi-platform titles are abysmal. Hotkeys are all but gone, replaced by gear wheels or sub-menu systems. Multi-monitor support or PIP is still a rarity and even more so if it's for something for utility (Swat 4 body cams or Supreme Commander tactical map). Many 8th gen primed titles can't even render a bloody mirror in an empty room without it tanking performance, if they're lucky enough to even have functioning mirrors or real reflections.
[/rant]


In news

Co-Creative Director of ARK expressed interest in a Switch port but also seems to think it'll be really tough and currentlly have no plans for it. https://www.dualshockers.com/ark-survival-evolved-nintendo-switch/

Sonics2k

Robert ninja wrote: »

Consoles used to be bleeding edge tech, the best you could get for a home experience and the games always pushed the limits of the hardware. 8th generation is absolutely complacent in its mediocrity with the PS4 & XBO releasing with about 2 years lag behind the current gaming hardware of its time.

This would be absolutely fine in a vacuum but the overwhelming majority of modern games use 8th gen as a base for their graphical and computational ambition. It's not exclusively a horsepower issue either, this can be seen in design choices and optimisation. The graphical and technical options available in multi-platform titles are abysmal. Hotkeys are all but gone, replaced by gear wheels or sub-menu systems. Multi-monitor support or PIP is still a rarity and even more so if it's for something for utility (Swat 4 body cams or Supreme Commander tactical map). Many 8th gen primed titles can't even render a bloody mirror in an empty room without it tanking performance, if they're lucky enough to even have functioning mirrors or real reflections.
[/rant]


In news

Co-Creative Director of ARK expressed interest in a Switch port but also seems to think it'll be really tough and currentlly have no plans for it. https://www.dualshockers.com/ark-survival-evolved-nintendo-switch/

Not being a smartass here, but when were consoles bleeding age tech?

Digital Solitude

Sonics2k wrote: »

Not being a smartass here, but when were consoles bleeding age tech?

Pretty sure PS1 and PS2 era consoles would have been faster and much cheaper than PCs at the time.

ERG89

Robert ninja wrote:

This would be absolutely fine in a vacuum but the overwhelming majority of modern games use 8th gen as a base for their graphical and computational ambition. It's not exclusively a horsepower issue either, this can be seen in design choices and optimisation. The graphical and technical options available in multi-platform titles are abysmal. Hotkeys are all but gone, replaced by gear wheels or sub-menu systems. Multi-monitor support or PIP is still a rarity and even more so if it's for something for utility (Swat 4 body cams or Supreme Commander tactical map). Many 8th gen primed titles can't even render a bloody mirror in an empty room without it tanking performance, if they're lucky enough to even have functioning mirrors or real reflections. [/rant]

God buy a Nintendo system would you, they ain't all about graphics and technical performance but are actually build from the ground up on fun mechanics that are y'know still enjoyable.
Although going by your posts you just play PC games & judge you haven't even played. If your measurement of the evolution of games is monitors, hotkeys & mirror reflecting a character you must be playing the wrong games.
There has been a ton of games this year alone to play most of them well over 20 hours. Go play Breath of the Wild, Persona 5 or Nier Automata & then maybe you might see that there is more to gaming than optimising graphics or continuous new hardware.

Digital Solitude wrote:

Pretty sure PS1 and PS2 era consoles would have been faster and much cheaper than PCs at the time.

That is nearly the last century.
If consoles were trying to keep up they'd have to release new systems every few years which just ain't feasible giving long development cycles for most games now.
Like I said earlier more than enough good games coming out now & often the best ones come out right at the end of a systems lifecycle.

Digital Solitude

ERG89 wrote: »

That is nearly the last century.
If consoles were trying to keep up they'd have to release new systems every few years which just ain't feasible giving long development cycles for most games now.
Like I said earlier more than enough good games coming out now & often the best ones come out right at the end of a systems lifecycle.

The topic was headed by how far behind modern PCs the PS4 is, and the PS3 wasn't much better. The question was when were consoles bleeding edge, hardly fair to knock 60% out of contention because they're old.

CiDeRmAn

Digital Solitude wrote: »

The topic was headed by how far behind modern PCs the PS4 is, and the PS3 wasn't much better. The question was when were consoles bleeding edge, hardly fair to knock 60% out of contention because they're old.

Also, in terms of value for money, you can play a modern videogame title on a current console that costs €250 at retail.
You have to invest multiples of that in a PC to do the same.
The reason the console may hold back pc game development is because, in the relevant games, the money is in console sales not pc.
Also, the pc has a vast library of new and upcoming exclusives via Steam and other portals which pay no mind of the console game market, so plenty of scope to exploit the power of the pc format.
Hardly a lack of pc games as a result, even if you don't count titles heading to console.

Retr0gamer

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Pretty sure PS1 and PS2 era consoles would have been faster and much cheaper than PCs at the time.

They weren't.

OptimusTractor

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Depressingly true. Titanfall 2 didn't get the promotion it deserved.
Lootboxes in Titanfall 3 confirmed

Guaranteed there'll be a promotion with the release of Pacific Rim 3.

"Pre-order on Xbox now to get the exclusive Tsunami Strike Jaeger" or something along those lines.

Robert ninja

ERG89 wrote: »

God buy a Nintendo system would you, they ain't all about graphics and technical performance but are actually build from the ground up on fun mechanics that are y'know still enjoyable.

The switch was made to sell exclusive titles licensed by nintendo that you can't get anywhere else just like all of nintendo's consoles, ever. The hardware wasn't made from the ground up to deliver 'fun mechanics' as I can guarantee nintendo doesn't have some magic technology that has exclusivity on that. It was made lower-spec because their target audience don't demand more than that. And I never said that low-spec games can't be enjoyable, most of my game library is low-spec either by design or just from being older titles.

ERG89 wrote: »

Although going by your posts you just play PC games & judge you haven't even played.

I've played console games most of my life. Also do I have to play every game to be able to comment on them? I know certain titles I would dislike without ever having play them, as do you. Not just genres, it's very easy to tell when something is another generic FPS or uninspired 3rd person action game. You judge games you've never played all the time. That's how you decide on which ones to buy.

ERG89 wrote: »

If your measurement of the evolution of games is monitors, hotkeys & mirror reflecting a character you must be playing the wrong games.

That is not my measurement of the evolution of games.
PIP has nothing to do with monitors, hotkeys aren't some new technology... my point was that there's less and less support and even some regression on these and many other aspects of gaming due to 7th-8th gen consoles' affect on the industry. Here's XBO's rep making excuses for why they're killing split-screen I'd reply to more of your post but I don't want to derail. (pm if you wish)


In news and not irrelavent to the previous conversation,

XBO's Senior Director claims to have the most launch titles for the upgraded console. Note that he argues updated games for the hardware count as launch titles because that's how sony spun it.

Benzino

Robert ninja wrote: »

Here's XBO's rep making excuses for why they're killing split-screen

Seem like perfectly good reasons to not include split screen.

Robert ninja

Benzino wrote: »

Seem like perfectly good reasons to not include split screen.

I suppose that's opinion. But at least it's conceded that 8th gen is the reason for feature regression.

Benzino

Robert ninja wrote: »

I suppose that's opinion. But at least it's conceded that 8th gen is the reason for feature regression.

No it doesn't, it was possible they just opted not to.

Robert ninja

Benzino wrote: »

No it doesn't, it was possible they just opted not to.

Because it was possible, that's the excuse? Please. Anything's possible. But what are they actually doing? Regressing on features because it's 8th gen and their reasoning is recursive

"vast majority" of people, at least those whose consoles are connected to Xbox Live, are playing co-op across Xbox Live, not locally.

So they've made a subscription based service which encourages online play and have continuously disabled local multilayer & offline options, so the their remaining & new consumer base doesn't seem to value offline and local multiplayer. What a surprise. Self fulfilling prophecy. And now if that game is on PC it won't have split screen either. Exactly my point.

Benzino

Robert ninja wrote: »

Because it was possible, that's the excuse? Please. Anything's possible. But what are they actually doing? Regressing on features because it's 8th gen and their reasoning is recursive

What are you talking about, honestly? 8th gen hardware can do split-screen, there are games out that do split screen. Just because Halo opted not to go with split screen doesn't mean the consoles suddenly can't do it.