considering there are still ways around that stick, such as multiple disks, it becomes more of a question of, "is the developer actually not going to half ass what theyre working on" To assume the fault lies with consoles is wrong, as machines do not make decisions. People/Developers do. Also, consoles a baseline for gamers, they arent meant to be the best they can possibly be. They are meant to give an even playing ground for gamers, no single xbox 360 has better specs than another, but pc's are differemnt all over. And having a better pc can give you an advantage. but w/e, that was ranty. Short story, I'm getting a ps4. Missed out on too many rpgs exclusive to ps3 this gen.
I think retail games will be the same, but downloaded versions might be cheaper in order to incentivize buying digitally off the marketplace of whatever console.
Thank you for this, I've been trying to push that message on people who just don't get why consoles exist forever. And in the end, who cares, people can own both. The notion that one holds back the other is just stupid, stick. Yes, we get it, some developers cut corners, that's on them, not the hardware they work with. The most common thing a publisher does when dealing with a port is they task another development studio with the port so it isn't even the original developer's concern most of the time. On top of that, your "limitless canvas" metaphor was flawed. A computer, while having much more room to grow as far as processing power goes than a console still has a ceiling so limits still have to be made. Since developers do not make games based on theoretical bests that computers could accomplish, they instead work on standards and benchmarks.
I honestly do not know how you can call something that's blatantly in front of everyone's eyes nonexistent. Again, I must bring up the example of the Level Cap Increase in Borderlands 2. Gearbox is entirely ready to release an update that increases the level cap of characters in Borderlands 2 for PC. However, they've run into problems where both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can crash due to the graphical effects added by the new combinations of skills that players can have. Ergo, the consoles are the only reason that the game hasn't been improved. The consoles are holding the game back. And I fail to see the flaw in my analogy, but I do see that you obviously don't read things very carefully as I clearly noted ". . . it's like giving him a canvas that is constantly growing because it's made up of all the canvas that can possibly be produced." With the canvas itself standing for overall processing power, I see this as fairly accurate. Technology is improving at an exponentially quicker rate, so the available canvas would constantly keep growing. He is limited, but only until more canvas is created for him to work with. Eventually he will finish his painting, but the canvas will keep growing even after it's finished. Aschur... Disks don't generate processing power... Two things wrong with this statement: The fault does lie with the actual hardware, as it is what creates the limit on what a developer can do. Also, machines do make decisions, that's the basis of Artificial Intelligence is having the computer make a decision. With the amount of ways possible to optimize games for your system, I'll have to call this statement crass. If your PC can run the game at all, chances are there's a way to get it up to a playable framerate.
As for the better PC's therefore better games thing, look at Crysis 3. That was built for top of the range PCs and it's diabolically bad. No content, just a graphics engine. Halo CE was longer and did more gameplay wise. So it's not like a console is so restrictive. You have to be clever.
I liked PS4 pretty much, I think that the company will re-emerge with the new console. I hope Microsoft launch a better plataform than them anyway, just waiting for E3 this year.
The first half of that post was opinion, though. You shouldn't enter a factual argument and treat your opinion as fact.
What's "blatantly in front of everyone's eyes" are different depending on who's eyes and what bias they have toward it. You want to see hardware as the problem so you see situations where cuts had to be made as the hardware's fault. The reality software can always be made better. Hardware forms a ceiling and it's conditions do not change. Software however has hundreds of different ways of solving a problem. If one solution doesn't work out or work out as well as the developers wanted there is always another, better solution. The key factor in why better solutions aren't derived is time. Time = money and the more time it takes to fix problems the more expensive the problems become to fix making it more cost effective to accept cutting corners. IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE HARDWARE. Those restrictions are known from the start and algorithms, code, heuristics, are all developed knowing well ahead of time what the limitations are. The flaw is your basing your analogy on a constantly moving target. Game development does not work on that principle. In the time it takes for better computers to come out a game is made for the specifications of computers it was originally made on or for. Those limitations based on benchmarks are still there. For your analogy to be accurate it would mean that PC games are constantly being upgraded to run on the latest and greatest hardware which just isn't true. PC games become dated just the same as console games. The different graphics settings will ease that transition better than console games that only have one graphical resolution but to say PC games have no limitations is just wrong. Your point is based off of continuous growth of PCs, not the games that are made for them. That is why it is silly to say that console games hold back PC games. AI is not what he was talking about nor what causes the problem. The point is the machine doesn't make decisions about the best way to code on it, the people making the programs do. As I said earlier, there is always a better way to make software, whether or not the developers actually do it is just up to time and money. I see you ignored the most important part of what aschur said there, that consoles are a baseline. They free consumers from having to worry about upgrading hardware. Despite what you may think, people aren't looking to constantly optimize and improve their hardware. People just want to get something that works and works reasonably well for a decent period of time to justify the cost of the machine. Buying an expensive gaming rig and then buying new parts for it every few years to keep it up to date spec wise is A.) Not cheap and B.) Work. It doesn't matter if you think that work is minimal, the fact is that it is work and many people don't like doing that work. Also I don't think his statement was crass. I have a macbook pro laptop, I cannot play most PC games without putting them on their lowest settings. There are very few optimizations I can make to improve those games and even if I did there is no way I could improve the game enough to make it equal to the people who don't need to do such optimizations. I am already at a disadvantage to any gaming rig. I know what you're going to respond with, prices of computers. I'm sure you can find whatever price of specific computers fits your thinking to make it seem like computers your talking about aren't expensive, the problem is average consumers don't think that way. They aren't tech savy, they aren't looking up components on Newegg, they aren't building their own rigs. People buy things as-is, and again, that's where consoles find their niche. There is very little thinking, all people need to know is that it plays games, plays them well, and little work needs to be put into their upkeep.
Honestly, everyone needs to gets their ass back on topic. Stick seems butthurt about consoles existing, just leave him be. I for one dont feel like dragging this out, especially since this is all the bullshit that comes up when someone says "PC master race", so stick, just shut your gaming-**** mouth. If people want a console, they buy one. If they dont, they buy a pc, or nothing at all. You can pm me if you feel like going on with the argument, but it's gotten off topic here. On topic: I hope that the little touch pad in the center is basically only used for pausing or something, it seems counter-intuitive to be removing your thumb from the stick to use it otherwise.
It'll be used for menu traversal, probably something like there'll be shortcuts for the PS Store and Home there. Also, insulting people because they're expressing their point of view is pretty douche like.
Agreed. If people want to continue, a "console vs. PC" thread is acceptable to be made. Honestly, I'm super surprised that they got rid of the Start/Select buttons. Obviously the touchpad will do what it's supposed to do now, but I just found it so off that they decided to just throw away one of the most recognizable elements of the controller.
I think it would be cool to "quick-jump" to sub-menus such as the inventory, game settings, skill tree and whatever else you might think of. Any one of said "buttons" would constitute the game pausing except make it a lot more intuitive. I saw this one fan-made picture of using it in a similar way to jump to all of the dashboard items in a PSP-style fashion.
As long as we don't see some "slide up on the touch pad to assassinate" kind of stuff, I guess it will be fine. So basically just menu shortcuts like you guys said, though I never owned a psp so I don't know how its menu operated with shortcuts and stuff. Im also hoping they keep their online service the same, free. I quickly got tired of paying for xbox live, especially when I have other things to pay for as well.
For me it isn't the paying for xbox live that's the issue. It's the lack of control I get from paying that bothers me. Microsoft shoves ads down my face with putting them all over the dashboard, and everything costs more money than it should on top of xbox live costs. I shouldn't have to pay 15 bucks for an arcade game or DLC pack on top of whatever the monthly xbox live charge is just to be able to buy things. Especially considering the only reason those things are so expensive is the Microsoft licensing, the developer sees a third of the profit regardless. /rant So yes, I hope psn keeps its free ways.
Everyone and I mean everyone(people buying it, people not buying it, people that choose to make it) knows XBL is a completely rip off money grab. Unless 720 makes online free I will probably get a ps4 because only reason I choose xbox over ps3 was Halo exclusive games where worth the extra money. Now with destiny been made on ps3/4 (and Halo been milked down the drain imo) I don't have any reason to stay with xbox over ps4 that I can think of. Is there anyway to use xbox 360 controller on ps4? I hate the PS analog positions.
Doubt it, but you can always pay another $20 or so to have your own customized controller with different analog sticks. That's what I'll be doing if the next Xbox doesn't seem worth it.
I grew up with the dualshock controller design, so I have no issues with using whatever comes with it, dualshock 4 or whatever its called. Never quite understood why/how people can hate a controller.
It's easy to hate a controller. -If it's uncomfortable to hold -If there are too many buttons -If there are not enough buttons -If the controls don't feel responsive enough to feedback