Is there really any point in getting the PS4/Xbox One at launch?

[WhiteMaze]

Honestly, with the amount of console port-saturation already, most of the library is going to be shared--including on PC. And with the really high price of these consoles, and the somewhat underwhelming powerhouse beneath the hood, I'd suggest more people clamber on to the PC gaming bandwagon.

Could not agree more.

 

[FAST6191]

Honestly, with the amount of console port-saturation already, most of the library is going to be shared--including on PC. And with the really high price of these consoles, and the somewhat underwhelming powerhouse beneath the hood, I'd suggest more people clamber on to the PC gaming bandwagon. It's been watered down heavily these past two console generations, with more and more console games bleeding into the PC market, so there's a foothold already for migrating, and this consequentially also means that many games that are cross-platform also are underwhelming in their requirements, as opposed to the real PC games that work the system for beautiful gameplay--or are horribly unoptimized, but the beauty of that is that fans can fix what develops and publishers can abandon; moreover, a lot of these games are already being built on architecture close to a PC in the first place, making porting somewhat easier, and more of a marketing move than a financial one at this point. So looking forward to more console "only" games will be possible on the PC platform, as well.

Curious. I would not have framed it like that and instead said a lot of the PC market has bled into the consoles.

 

[Celice]

Curious. I would not have framed it like that and instead said a lot of the PC market has bled into the consoles.

I see very little qualities of a PC game in a console version. User control is pretty much excised in the port, mods are nonexistent, and the general play style is different. I think a good example of how console games differ from PC, and why it's console bleeding into PC rather than the inverse, is what happened with Crysis 2. The entire game was thrown out and reconfigured for a new, console audience, one that would be sold on tropes rather than gameplay: these include typifying the avatar as a controller of circumstances, rather than a participant (often the player is situated as a deity in terms of player agency, making most opposition token resistance until higher difficulties kick in; contrast the passive, cooperative role of Nomad in Crysis 1 with the powerhouse, one-man army of Crysis 2); the linearity of design so that the player is guided towards completing the game as goal, rather than to experience the game (every map in Crysis 2 is meant to be a passive spectacle, in which the player is funneled through, and the branching paths are incredibly basic; contrast to Crysis 1 that remained pretty open-ended in terms of how to accomplish goals or proceed, and that the goal was to infiltrate, not annihilate); and the amount of tutorial, hand-holding elements that mean to lead the player both into certain methods of playing (instructs players on the "right" way to play their game), rather than treating the player as their own agent and participant.

These are some very basic claims that should really be expanded upon in detail, as they do underlie some pretty interesting design shifts in games, ones that pander towards a console audience more than a gamer audience (not to suggest that PC gaming is the natural gaming, but only that the PC market hasn't necessarily had to deal with business models of survival and expansion--the marketability and financing, the publishing of games have a huge, invasive presence in console gaming that hasn't been present to the same degree in PC gaming, and even, arguably, in the gaming of the 80s or 90s, where what mattered wasn't so much having a big name, but being able to publish on a console).

I think another good example is just the extreme difference between Morrowind and Skyrim, Bioshock and Bioshock: Infinite, and the Crysis examples above. Game development has been shifted to a console-catering audience of empowerment and leashing, really hammering home the consumer part of gaming, more than the actual act of gaming.

 

[Taleweaver]

Don't forget UT2004 vs UT3. The UI wasn't just minimalized: it was cramped. The tournament-style of game was changed with a story about being in a war (which went full retard, knowing what the gameplay was about). And while the physics were admittedly over the top in UT2004, they tuned it too far down for UT3 (WTF was wrong with the slope dodge? It was there since the original unreal).


More on-topic: I think we're all underestimating the power of commercials. xwatchmanx's friend illustrates this: purchasing a console isn't done on a logical choice. It's done on gut feeling. This is also why there is so much polarisation: people want the "better" console. That they're both powerhouses that are sold relatively cheap (ey...check the launch prices of previous gens...even without inflation, they were more expensive), doesn't even matter. It's about you being the better one while the "suckers" fall in the trap of getting the loser console.

Of course the logical thing is to wait. Prices will drop and libraries will grow, and pretty much everyone has a backlog of unfinished or even unplayed games. But as said...I don't think it'll turn out that way.

 

[FAST6191]

I see very little qualities of a PC game in a console version. User control is pretty much excised in the port, mods are nonexistent, and the general play style is different. I think a good example of how console games differ from PC, and why it's console bleeding into PC rather than the inverse, is what happened with Crysis 2. The entire game was thrown out and reconfigured for a new, console audience, one that would be sold on tropes rather than gameplay: these include typifying the avatar as a controller of circumstances, rather than a participant (often the player is situated as a deity in terms of player agency, making most opposition token resistance until higher difficulties kick in; contrast the passive, cooperative role of Nomad in Crysis 1 with the powerhouse, one-man army of Crysis 2); the linearity of design so that the player is guided towards completing the game as goal, rather than to experience the game (every map in Crysis 2 is meant to be a passive spectacle, in which the player is funneled through, and the branching paths are incredibly basic; contrast to Crysis 1 that remained pretty open-ended in terms of how to accomplish goals or proceed, and that the goal was to infiltrate, not annihilate); and the amount of tutorial, hand-holding elements that mean to lead the player both into certain methods of playing (instructs players on the "right" way to play their game), rather than treating the player as their own agent and participant.

These are some very basic claims that should really be expanded upon in detail, as they do underlie some pretty interesting design shifts in games, ones that pander towards a console audience more than a gamer audience (not to suggest that PC gaming is the natural gaming, but only that the PC market hasn't necessarily had to deal with business models of survival and expansion--the marketability and financing, the publishing of games have a huge, invasive presence in console gaming that hasn't been present to the same degree in PC gaming, and even, arguably, in the gaming of the 80s or 90s, where what mattered wasn't so much having a big name, but being able to publish on a console).

I think another good example is just the extreme difference between Morrowind and Skyrim, Bioshock and Bioshock: Infinite, and the Crysis examples above. Game development has been shifted to a console-catering audience of empowerment and leashing, really hammering home the consumer part of gaming, more than the actual act of gaming.

Morrowind and Skyrim -- save that there was the better part of ten years (and another game, plus more in the same engine) between them?

Back on topic so to speak.

We seem to have a different approach to how we characterise the PC and consoles. I was thinking more from a development approach in which case things are done in a fairly parallel manner as a matter of course rather than actual porting that involves sacrifices and whatnot. That said looking back and seeing similar things for the arcades and the very fractured nature of old consoles (I try never to underestimate the effects of the Amiga and the PCE/TG16, Apple II aside there was not anything really like that in the US though).
I can certainly appreciate the need to separate the tools from the product though and a tropes and mechanics analysis might work better in the long run, I shall have to consider some things before going truly in depth here.

"avatar as a controller of circumstances, rather than a participant"
Glib remark of sorts perhaps but I can not resist a *points at doom and co* and quite a few other sorts of games at this point. Granted most of that was straight up technical but hey.

"Bioshock and Bioshock: Infinite"
I have not played enough of any of them to call it but from what I have seen several people have openly wondered at something of a design by committee/forest for the trees situation as far as the effective elements of the game being replicated.

 

[slingblade1170]

If I decide to buy an XboxONE or PS4 it will be around tax time next year. There is no way i'm buying one at launch, gotta see how they are before buying. I may not buy either and build a gaming pc instead.

 

[chavosaur]

There's an achievement for buying an Xbone day 1...
I want it o3o

 

[Xarsah16]

This thread reminds me of an xkcd comic.

Decided against preordering and purching Xbone and PS4. If anything, I might get a PS3, but I think I'm pretty much done buying consoles for now and just enjoying what I have. I love my PSP and I love my 3DS. Ever since I hacked my PSP and got the Supercard for my DS, I've played pretty much everything I've ever owned from other systems on a handhold console (with the exception of Kingdom Hearts I and II, and L.A. Noire) and that makes me happy.

 

[xcrimsonstormx]

Yes, the slim possibility I an exploit for hacking/CFW although that wont be probable for at least 2 or 3 years after the consoles release, that's just my speculation. Anyways even by that point in time you could probably by one on that specific CFW or pre-modded for that same price. Just my speculation though...

 

[hhs]

After buying a Gamecube at launch and seeing a price drop a few months later, I've learnt to never buy any consoles at launch. In this time and age of devices being connected to the internet, I predict cases of people having problems with their launch console and Sony/Microsoft saying, "yeah, my bad. Just hang in there and we'll fix it up with a firmware update".

Everything you post I read in Jake's voice. It's impossible to disagree with anything you say as long as you hold that power.

 

[Veho]

Is there really any point in getting the PS4/Xbox One at launch?

Bragging rights, launch titles, additional functionality like media playing or social networking that you get to fiddle with while waiting for games, good launch sales encourage devs to make more games, and most importantly, launch models are usually the easiest to hack.

 

[McHaggis]

I was daft enough to buy a Wii U at launch (the first console I ever did buy at launch if you don't count the DS I imported before launch), and to be honest, I can't really see the PS4/XBox One launches being any better. I got my first PS3 around a month before the slims came out, luckily for me it turned out to be faulty so I returned it and got a slim instead. My first PS2 was also the slim model. I think I'd be happy to do the same again, just wait for the new revision of the PS4.

 

[Clarky]

Unless you are some kind of crack head who needs a console fix, not a whole lot of reasons to jump just yet