Oops, forgot I blocked all of Gawker media's websites on the work network.
At this rate, I don't think Microsoft nor Sony give two shits about what Nintendo is doing anymore.
No, they definitely follow Nintendo's doings with great interest. After all, when Nintendo's console department kills the company, there's plenty of good game designers and valuable intellectual property in need of a new home.
Damn son.
Seriously though, as much as it may pain Nintendo fans to realise, Nintendo just aren't relevant in the current console market. Fans have this pipe dream that if they got Call of Duty, GTA, FIFA and so on then everyone would flock to Nintendo because "Nintendo exclusives AND third party games?!" but it isn't based in reality. Nintendo left that market for Sony and Microsoft to duopolise last gen, re-entering it will be near impossible unless they want to waste a shitload of money both catching up and then trying to compete. That's why I like the idea of them doing something different instead, like the hybrid device rumour.
Anyway, Polygon have their own article out with a couple of new claims, mainly that Microsoft will announce it at E3 and that they're targeting 6 TFLOPS with the specs (compared to the PS4k's rumoured 4.14 TFLOPS) but I find them kinda hard to believe compared to Kotaku's story. First because it wouldn't make much sense announcing the hardware now if it's not coming out till late 2017 and second because 6 TFLOPS would put it in the range of the freaking GTX Titan X, which'd be impossible to deliver at a reasonable price. ~5 TFLOPS seems more realistic.
E3 should still be fun, though it's a bit shocking it's only two and a half weeks away, seems like it's come out of nowhere this year.
Oops, forgot I blocked all of Gawker media's websites on the work network.
At this rate, I don't think Microsoft nor Sony give two shits about what Nintendo is doing anymore.
No, they definitely follow Nintendo's doings with great interest. After all, when Nintendo's console department kills the company, there's plenty of good game designers and valuable intellectual property in need of a new home.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
Traditionally, consoles have had 5-6 year lifespans. 4 isn't unheard of, but it's on the short side. Even then, those consoles didn't have 90% cross-gen titles for the first 18 months of their life cycles.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
Traditionally, consoles have had 5-6 year lifespans. 4 isn't unheard of, but it's on the short side. Even then, those consoles didn't have 90% cross-gen titles for the first 18 months of their life cycles.
Yeah, the crossgen phenomenon is definitely a modern thing as we hit diminishing returns on what hardware is capable of. The relative gap between the PS3 and the PS4 is significantly lower than the relative gap between the PS1 and the PS2 for example... although, to be fair, I was pleasantly surprised at how well they got Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 running on the PS1.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
I sincerely believe those numbers for the Wii are skewed.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if for every two owners with 1 game there wasn't one with 20+ or even more ridiculous skewing. I mean, remember, the Wii had the virtual console which sold a fair number of software units.
And from the way I've seen diehard nintendo fans talk, they definitely could have skewed the attach ratio by buying all of the first party games and then 20-30 virtual console games.
Seriously, there were actually a ton of Wii's that were used for Wii Sports and Wii Sports alone.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
I sincerely believe those numbers for the Wii are skewed.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if for every two owners with 1 game there wasn't one with 20+ or even more ridiculous skewing. I mean, remember, the Wii had the virtual console which sold a fair number of software units.
And from the way I've seen diehard nintendo fans talk, they definitely could have skewed the attach ratio by buying all of the first party games and then 20-30 virtual console games.
Seriously, there were actually a ton of Wii's that were used for Wii Sports and Wii Sports alone.
That logic doesn't really hold up that well. If there are or were so many Nintendo fans that they could somehow skew a 100m selling system's attach ratio that heavily, how the hell did the Wii U bomb so dramatically? On top of that, how did Mario Kart Wii outsell the Nintendo 64, Gamecube and Wii U? Hell, how did Mario Kart Wii outsell the Gamecube and Wii U combined?!
I'm sure a ton of people did buy a Wii for Wii Sports but it's also fairly clear a lot of them bought other games for it as well, whether it was Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros, Rabbids, Just Dance or whatever. And FYI, the Wii version of Just Dance is still the best selling every year.
The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years. The JPR analysis suggests the biggest chunk of gaming PC revenue — somewhere in the vicinity of 44 percent — comes from the so-called enthusiast segment, which the researchers identify as "very performance and style oriented, much like sports car owners."
I don't like the line of reasoning that " X industry should just give up" but the data suggests more money is made PC side these days. Consoles won't ever go away, but Indie games and MOBAs are among the best sellers in general for gaming.
PC gaming has been "dying" since like 1996.
It has become a sort of in-joke for PC gamers due to the slew of articles that get released every time a new console launches about how the PC is dead now for reals this time no seriously guys.
I keep hearing the same thing about consoles too, how each generation is "the last" and they're all going to jump out of the pool to make way for PCs.
Seems like it's just everyone's doing alright, to me.
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
Traditionally, consoles have had 5-6 year lifespans. 4 isn't unheard of, but it's on the short side. Even then, those consoles didn't have 90% cross-gen titles for the first 18 months of their life cycles.
Well, we're at three years at the moment. Right now, Sony is telling us that the Neo will not have any exclusive experiences that existing PS4 owners will miss out on.
Rightly so, lots of people are skeptical of that, and the general attitude from reading this thread seems to be "Yeah, sure, maybe at first, but how long will that last?"
Well, it only has to last a year or two, and then even if Neo-exclusive games start coming out, well, we're not really in any different position than a new console generation would leave us anyway.
In fact, let's look at it from another perspective. Imagine if, instead of coming out and branding this as PS4.5, Sony came out and announced this as the PS5, but said there would be full backwards compatibility from day one with your existing PS4 library.
I feel like they would be PRAISED for that. People would say "sure it's a shorter generation this time around, but they're making up for it by having full backwards compatibility, and the new machine will do fancy VR as well!"
I think if you phrase it as a new console with backwards compatibility rather than a half-step console, it sounds a lot better and brings things back to reality a bit.
I'm not willing to believe people are that stupid just because people didn't buy the Wii U
Maybe it wasn't just a confusing name
Maybe just nobody gave a shit about a new Nintendo console
Xbox One is selling well enough after all, and that's a much more confusing name
I don't think the prospect of a New Xbox One or whatever they call it would be that confusing to the marketplace, and frankly I find that thought process condescending
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
I sincerely believe those numbers for the Wii are skewed.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if for every two owners with 1 game there wasn't one with 20+ or even more ridiculous skewing. I mean, remember, the Wii had the virtual console which sold a fair number of software units.
And from the way I've seen diehard nintendo fans talk, they definitely could have skewed the attach ratio by buying all of the first party games and then 20-30 virtual console games.
Seriously, there were actually a ton of Wii's that were used for Wii Sports and Wii Sports alone.
That tends to be how it works for all consoles. Ton of casual audiences buy systems for a handful of games, enthusiast audiences buy a ton. For every Wii that was a Wii Sports/Mario Kart machine, there's probably a 360 that was solely used as a Madden/Call of Duty machine. Not saying that people didn't do that, just that it's not outside the norm for any hardware.
Though I did say "exception, not the rule", which was a poor word choice on my part.
Also, I highly doubt this takes digital sales into consideration, as those were infamously hard to track last gen.
Well, the One was released in 2013, so if this happens in 2017 then it'd actually be following the normal console generation pattern of 4-5 years. In actuality, the ~10 year lifespan of the previous generation is the exception.
Traditionally, consoles have had 5-6 year lifespans. 4 isn't unheard of, but it's on the short side. Even then, those consoles didn't have 90% cross-gen titles for the first 18 months of their life cycles.
Well, we're at three years at the moment. Right now, Sony is telling us that the Neo will not have any exclusive experiences that existing PS4 owners will miss out on.
Rightly so, lots of people are skeptical of that, and the general attitude from reading this thread seems to be "Yeah, sure, maybe at first, but how long will that last?"
Well, it only has to last a year or two, and then even if Neo-exclusive games start coming out, well, we're not really in any different position than a new console generation would leave us anyway.
In fact, let's look at it from another perspective. Imagine if, instead of coming out and branding this as PS4.5, Sony came out and announced this as the PS5, but said there would be full backwards compatibility from day one with your existing PS4 library.
I feel like they would be PRAISED for that. People would say "sure it's a shorter generation this time around, but they're making up for it by having full backwards compatibility, and the new machine will do fancy VR as well!"
I think if you phrase it as a new console with backwards compatibility rather than a half-step console, it sounds a lot better and brings things back to reality a bit.
Not really. A new generation every 3 years?
count me out
+4
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
They have to do something to increase the speed of consoles rapidly in the next couple of years. VR is the biggest gaming advancement since games made the leap from 2D to 3D, and consoles need to be able to power it.
Making sure the newer machines can run all of the older games at least softens the blow a little.
They have to do something to increase the speed of consoles rapidly in the next couple of years. VR is the biggest gaming advancement since games made the leap from 2D to 3D, and consoles need to be able to power it.
Making sure the newer machines can run all of the older games at least softens the blow a little.
And Laser disk was a revolution in movie watching too.
I honestly think I might just be getting old because the appeal of VR with the current tech is just not something I get nor do I think asking for a whole new console at this point in the game to power VR is warranted. At that point they're asking people to drop money in the $400-$600 range for a new console just so they can drop another couple hundred dollars for the VR gear.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
They have to do something to increase the speed of consoles rapidly in the next couple of years. VR is the biggest gaming advancement since games made the leap from 2D to 3D, and consoles need to be able to power it.
Making sure the newer machines can run all of the older games at least softens the blow a little.
And Laser disk was a revolution in movie watching too.
I honestly think I might just be getting old because the appeal of VR with the current tech is just not something I get nor do I think asking for a whole new console at this point in the game to power VR is warranted. At that point they're asking people to drop money in the $400-$600 range for a new console just so they can drop another couple hundred dollars for the VR gear.
I doubt that VR is going to take off like that. While the tech to power VR this time around is a lot better and much more realistic, it's still too niche and impractical vs controllers, handhelds, etc.
I'm just hoping the Virtuosity movie for this VR cycle will be good. :O
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I have serious doubts for VR, reminds me of the "3D" craze.
Both have been around for awhile promising grandiose things and everytime they're tried they end up being all bullshot.
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
If you haven't tried consumer VR you are not in a position to comment on the likelihood of its success, or whether it's a gimmick or not. Period. That you think it comparing to 3D or laser disks is an apt comparison in the slightest just proves that point further.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive and honestly maintain any sort of skepticism about the technology's future, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
If you haven't tried consumer VR you are not in a position to comment on the likelihood of its success, or whether it's a gimmick or not. Period. Comparing it to 3D or laser disks is just sheer goosery that proves my point.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive and honestly maintain any sort of skepticism about the technology's future, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
It has a lot of potential but I think you are confusing it for what it might be vs what it is right now.
there are a lot of people that decry Nintendo for making different control schemes and VR asks people to not only grapple with new control schemes but also high costs and total isolation to enjoy games.
I just don't see it flying for a large majority of the population. Can a parent put it on and take care of their kids at the same time? Can a person care for their sick spouse? What about the cost? You've now added a lot of factors into the equation and I think those changes will take a lot more for most people to swallow.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
At the end of the day you just compared it's significance to laser disks. If you actually feel that's a valid comparison, then I doubt anything I can say will convince you otherwise.
I'm genuinely curious here - do you have experience with any current form of VR?
I ask that not to belittle, but just because I've not had the chance to speak much to those unconvinced by the tech, having spent most of the last three years in a VR hype bubble.
If you haven't tried consumer VR you are not in a position to comment on the likelihood of its success, or whether it's a gimmick or not. Period. That you think it comparing to 3D or laser disks is an apt comparison in the slightest just proves that point further.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive and honestly maintain any sort of skepticism about the technology's future, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive at all you're in a tiny, tiny minority.
BTW I loved Virtuosity. I don't want people to think I think that it was a bad movie. Nor do I think the new VR is bad.
That said, if you're arguing that wearing a headset (on average they weigh 1lb) for hours on end is more practical (and comfortable) than say sitting on your ass and holding a controller then I think you've been drinking the kool-aid a little too much.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
At the end of the day you just compared it's significance to laser disks. If you actually feel that's a valid comparison, then there's not anything I can say with just words to convince you otherwise.
I'm genuinely curious here - do you have experience with any current form of VR?
Not currently. I do not have the cash or ability to do so. I have been keeping up on the technology and have watched and read a lot of the experience. I am not decrying it just to decry it. I am telling you problems I see in it.
Honestly I can't even consider doing it because I cannot be that walled off from the world right now. The example I give of a sick spouse is a real one for me (though she will recover it's just a long timeline on it. Brain surgery who knew?)
I wasn't even being flip on the whole thing with Laserdisc. We had one. It's actually superior to DVD's in a some ways in a time way before that. Costs were prohibitive for the majority of adoption though which is part of why I made the comparison.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If you haven't tried consumer VR you are not in a position to comment on the likelihood of its success, or whether it's a gimmick or not. Period. That you think it comparing to 3D or laser disks is an apt comparison in the slightest just proves that point further.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive and honestly maintain any sort of skepticism about the technology's future, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
Whether or not VR works well isn't really why people are skeptical. Tech can be functional and still fail if it's too expensive, or if it's not user friendly, or if it isn't practical for day-to-day use. Personally, I don't think it'll take off because asking people to drop half a grand (or more) on a peripheral, when many aren't willing to drop that much on entirely new hardware, is a steep hill to climb.
Edit: And that's assuming they even HAVE the hardware to run VR. If not, you're looking at spending another $400-1000+.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
Ok. that is fair.
I feel like you are focusing on the one flip comparison I made and not the meat of my argument though.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
BTW I loved Virtuosity. I don't want people to think I think that it was a bad movie. Nor do I think the new VR is bad.
That said, if you're arguing that wearing a headset (on average they weigh 1lb) for hours on end is more practical (and comfortable) than say sitting on your ass and holding a controller then I think you've been drinking the kool-aid a little too much.
I've worn my Rift for several hours in a row sat on my ass holding a controller just fine. I've worn hats that were less comfortable.
Okay, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. I think you're underestimating how far the consumer versions have come from the early impressions, particularly in the consumer-important areas like comfort.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
The reason the laser disc (and 3D) comparison is flawed is because both of those are just new ways to experience existing content. They improve on what's already there, they don't add anything new and they don't change much. 3D movies improve the movie watching experience a bit, laser discs improved video quality a bit.
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
Because we didn't have the tech in order to realize VR back in the 90's.
To get it back to consoles the large problem I originally brought up is that if the reasons for this next generation of consoles is VR then I don't see that as being a draw for most people who may well not be sold or be able to be sold on the current VR tech.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Having tried consumer VR: still not impressed. It's a thing, but hailing it as some kind of second coming of anything is hilarious. 3D did the same thing. They are about equal from where I'm at. Someone who has experienced both several dozen times.
The flavor of the kool aid don't change the fact it's kool aid.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?.
The main thing was the lack of mass manufactured, high quality small size screens, the lack of cheap, reliable positional tracking hardware, and the lack of computing power.
Smartphones solved the first two, and we're now at the point with processing power where environments can be rendered with high enough fidelity to trick your brain without conscious effort on your part.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The "You're not allowed to have an opinion on any aspect at all unless you've physically used it" is bullshit and needs to die now.
People who have tried VR don't, for the most part, make comparisons to 3DTVs, so it's a fair statement to make.
I say for the most part because there will always be the odd skeptic, but I've demoed VR to a LOT of people, even with the primitive development kits, and people of all ages from 8 to 80 have walked away convinced.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?.
The main thing was the lack of mass manufactured, high quality small size screens, the lack of cheap, reliable positional tracking hardware, and the lack of computing power.
Smartphones solved the first two, and we're now at the point with processing power where environments can be rendered with high enough fidelity to trick your brain without conscious effort on your part.
So it was refinement of a platform that you're actually talking about and not the actual platform itself.
TV didn't wait to catch on until color, or 1080p or such like. If you're serious about making the argument that this is an equivalent to that invention your argument has some issues where it has been previously crippled by the technology available.
Posts
Damn son.
Seriously though, as much as it may pain Nintendo fans to realise, Nintendo just aren't relevant in the current console market. Fans have this pipe dream that if they got Call of Duty, GTA, FIFA and so on then everyone would flock to Nintendo because "Nintendo exclusives AND third party games?!" but it isn't based in reality. Nintendo left that market for Sony and Microsoft to duopolise last gen, re-entering it will be near impossible unless they want to waste a shitload of money both catching up and then trying to compete. That's why I like the idea of them doing something different instead, like the hybrid device rumour.
Anyway, Polygon have their own article out with a couple of new claims, mainly that Microsoft will announce it at E3 and that they're targeting 6 TFLOPS with the specs (compared to the PS4k's rumoured 4.14 TFLOPS) but I find them kinda hard to believe compared to Kotaku's story. First because it wouldn't make much sense announcing the hardware now if it's not coming out till late 2017 and second because 6 TFLOPS would put it in the range of the freaking GTX Titan X, which'd be impossible to deliver at a reasonable price. ~5 TFLOPS seems more realistic.
E3 should still be fun, though it's a bit shocking it's only two and a half weeks away, seems like it's come out of nowhere this year.
Because that's totally mattered in the past.
Damn, dude. That's harsh.
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
Traditionally, consoles have had 5-6 year lifespans. 4 isn't unheard of, but it's on the short side. Even then, those consoles didn't have 90% cross-gen titles for the first 18 months of their life cycles.
Steam: pazython
Totally agreed. I know lots of people that bought a Wii for Wii Sports and then never bought any more games for it because they weren't buying Wiis - they were buying the ability to play Wii Sports. Hell, my father-in-law bought one with some discretionary funds for his local Moose Lodge. Members' kids and grandkids play Wii Sports when they tire of pool and air hockey. And that's it. That disc has never been traded out because they never bought another one.
The WiiU selling poorly wasn't because people thought the WiiU was updated Wii. It didn't sell because the people that bought Wii Sports could still play Wii Sports.
Those scenarios are actually the exception, not the rule. The average Wii owner had 8.8 games.
Steam: pazython
I stand corrected. That's a cool article.
Yeah, the crossgen phenomenon is definitely a modern thing as we hit diminishing returns on what hardware is capable of. The relative gap between the PS3 and the PS4 is significantly lower than the relative gap between the PS1 and the PS2 for example... although, to be fair, I was pleasantly surprised at how well they got Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 running on the PS1.
I sincerely believe those numbers for the Wii are skewed.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if for every two owners with 1 game there wasn't one with 20+ or even more ridiculous skewing. I mean, remember, the Wii had the virtual console which sold a fair number of software units.
And from the way I've seen diehard nintendo fans talk, they definitely could have skewed the attach ratio by buying all of the first party games and then 20-30 virtual console games.
Seriously, there were actually a ton of Wii's that were used for Wii Sports and Wii Sports alone.
That logic doesn't really hold up that well. If there are or were so many Nintendo fans that they could somehow skew a 100m selling system's attach ratio that heavily, how the hell did the Wii U bomb so dramatically? On top of that, how did Mario Kart Wii outsell the Nintendo 64, Gamecube and Wii U? Hell, how did Mario Kart Wii outsell the Gamecube and Wii U combined?!
I'm sure a ton of people did buy a Wii for Wii Sports but it's also fairly clear a lot of them bought other games for it as well, whether it was Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, New Super Mario Bros, Rabbids, Just Dance or whatever. And FYI, the Wii version of Just Dance is still the best selling every year.
I keep hearing the same thing about consoles too, how each generation is "the last" and they're all going to jump out of the pool to make way for PCs.
Seems like it's just everyone's doing alright, to me.
Well, we're at three years at the moment. Right now, Sony is telling us that the Neo will not have any exclusive experiences that existing PS4 owners will miss out on.
Rightly so, lots of people are skeptical of that, and the general attitude from reading this thread seems to be "Yeah, sure, maybe at first, but how long will that last?"
Well, it only has to last a year or two, and then even if Neo-exclusive games start coming out, well, we're not really in any different position than a new console generation would leave us anyway.
In fact, let's look at it from another perspective. Imagine if, instead of coming out and branding this as PS4.5, Sony came out and announced this as the PS5, but said there would be full backwards compatibility from day one with your existing PS4 library.
I feel like they would be PRAISED for that. People would say "sure it's a shorter generation this time around, but they're making up for it by having full backwards compatibility, and the new machine will do fancy VR as well!"
I think if you phrase it as a new console with backwards compatibility rather than a half-step console, it sounds a lot better and brings things back to reality a bit.
That tends to be how it works for all consoles. Ton of casual audiences buy systems for a handful of games, enthusiast audiences buy a ton. For every Wii that was a Wii Sports/Mario Kart machine, there's probably a 360 that was solely used as a Madden/Call of Duty machine. Not saying that people didn't do that, just that it's not outside the norm for any hardware.
Though I did say "exception, not the rule", which was a poor word choice on my part.
Also, I highly doubt this takes digital sales into consideration, as those were infamously hard to track last gen.
Steam: pazython
Not really. A new generation every 3 years?
count me out
They have to do something to increase the speed of consoles rapidly in the next couple of years. VR is the biggest gaming advancement since games made the leap from 2D to 3D, and consoles need to be able to power it.
Making sure the newer machines can run all of the older games at least softens the blow a little.
And Laser disk was a revolution in movie watching too.
I honestly think I might just be getting old because the appeal of VR with the current tech is just not something I get nor do I think asking for a whole new console at this point in the game to power VR is warranted. At that point they're asking people to drop money in the $400-$600 range for a new console just so they can drop another couple hundred dollars for the VR gear.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
The 1070 comes out next month and reportedly runs better than a Titan X for <$400, so it's totally doable.
But they're using AMD GPU's so who freaking knows.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I doubt that VR is going to take off like that. While the tech to power VR this time around is a lot better and much more realistic, it's still too niche and impractical vs controllers, handhelds, etc.
I'm just hoping the Virtuosity movie for this VR cycle will be good. :O
Both have been around for awhile promising grandiose things and everytime they're tried they end up being all bullshot.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive and honestly maintain any sort of skepticism about the technology's future, then you are in a tiny, tiny minority.
It has a lot of potential but I think you are confusing it for what it might be vs what it is right now.
there are a lot of people that decry Nintendo for making different control schemes and VR asks people to not only grapple with new control schemes but also high costs and total isolation to enjoy games.
I just don't see it flying for a large majority of the population. Can a parent put it on and take care of their kids at the same time? Can a person care for their sick spouse? What about the cost? You've now added a lot of factors into the equation and I think those changes will take a lot more for most people to swallow.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I'm genuinely curious here - do you have experience with any current form of VR?
I ask that not to belittle, but just because I've not had the chance to speak much to those unconvinced by the tech, having spent most of the last three years in a VR hype bubble.
If you can try a consumer Oculus Rift or HTC Vive at all you're in a tiny, tiny minority.
That said, if you're arguing that wearing a headset (on average they weigh 1lb) for hours on end is more practical (and comfortable) than say sitting on your ass and holding a controller then I think you've been drinking the kool-aid a little too much.
Not currently. I do not have the cash or ability to do so. I have been keeping up on the technology and have watched and read a lot of the experience. I am not decrying it just to decry it. I am telling you problems I see in it.
Honestly I can't even consider doing it because I cannot be that walled off from the world right now. The example I give of a sick spouse is a real one for me (though she will recover it's just a long timeline on it. Brain surgery who knew?)
I wasn't even being flip on the whole thing with Laserdisc. We had one. It's actually superior to DVD's in a some ways in a time way before that. Costs were prohibitive for the majority of adoption though which is part of why I made the comparison.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
VR is a whole new thing, all of its own. It doesn't improve on existing platforms, it's a platform in itself.
Whether or not VR works well isn't really why people are skeptical. Tech can be functional and still fail if it's too expensive, or if it's not user friendly, or if it isn't practical for day-to-day use. Personally, I don't think it'll take off because asking people to drop half a grand (or more) on a peripheral, when many aren't willing to drop that much on entirely new hardware, is a steep hill to climb.
Edit: And that's assuming they even HAVE the hardware to run VR. If not, you're looking at spending another $400-1000+.
Steam: pazython
Ok. that is fair.
I feel like you are focusing on the one flip comparison I made and not the meat of my argument though.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I've worn my Rift for several hours in a row sat on my ass holding a controller just fine. I've worn hats that were less comfortable.
Okay, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. I think you're underestimating how far the consumer versions have come from the early impressions, particularly in the consumer-important areas like comfort.
If it's only the new platform that matters why did it fail in the 90's?
I'm not sure that the Laserdisc comparison is as far off as you like. We iterate hardware faster than we did in those days so even if it is a good analogy I'm not sure the results will be the same.
Because we didn't have the tech in order to realize VR back in the 90's.
Like, at all.
We're the minority in how we interact with digital platforms. I don't think most gamers want that level of immersion right now.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
The flavor of the kool aid don't change the fact it's kool aid.
The main thing was the lack of mass manufactured, high quality small size screens, the lack of cheap, reliable positional tracking hardware, and the lack of computing power.
Smartphones solved the first two, and we're now at the point with processing power where environments can be rendered with high enough fidelity to trick your brain without conscious effort on your part.
People who have tried VR don't, for the most part, make comparisons to 3DTVs, so it's a fair statement to make.
I say for the most part because there will always be the odd skeptic, but I've demoed VR to a LOT of people, even with the primitive development kits, and people of all ages from 8 to 80 have walked away convinced.
Actually someone who has tried it just did.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So it was refinement of a platform that you're actually talking about and not the actual platform itself.
TV didn't wait to catch on until color, or 1080p or such like. If you're serious about making the argument that this is an equivalent to that invention your argument has some issues where it has been previously crippled by the technology available.