Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

While Microsoft waits to show off there system. We had the PS4 reveal yesterday, However, let's look at the first Wii U's system launch debut and assume current trends continue. Gamer's will be waiting for developers to make games on PS4, Expect, a high price. Check, check, Doomsday threads, double check.

I am curious as to how much Sony will unveil at this years E3, What good is a console, without games? Look at the Wii U bashing. We have very big hints that Nintendo will be pulling out the big guns. Ie, Retro,Monolith,Platinum, first party. A long with a bunch more possibly unannounced titles. I bring this up to paint a picture of what the PS4 is up against and most likely WILL go through when it launches, it HAS to compete. about 3 games were revealed for the PS4. And, only one or two good titles will be available at launch. If it fails to pick up steam, Nintendo and Microsoft could easily gain the lead.

Getting information, marketing and games out is a must for any console/handheld. And, let's not forget the Vita. The 3D's, although less capable graphically. Sells more than the Vita handheld. It remains to be seen if the PS4 can jump start it's heart. Sony is taking losses, and pushing out a 499 console is VERY risky business..It gets more and more expensive for developers, to make games on consoles the more graphically capable they get.

Bottom line, Sony better get it's shit together, Nintendo has the lead with first party titles an upcoming third party/second. Also, Microsoft has yet to show it's new console, If consumers see a lack of games, and a huge 499-699 price tag. With lack of support. Rushed console launch issues. It gives the rivals full metal jackets.

You heard it right here folks he thinks that "PS4 could flop." and of course there could be people on this forum right now against his opinion! I smell a console war about to heat up folks so let me begin this in better fashion...

LET THE CONSOLE WAR BEGIN!

The reveal didn't do very well, but it's just the beginning. I don't think it'll flop like the Vita. But unfortunately, Nintendo and Sony made the first move for the next gen. That means that Microsoft can capitalize on all of their mistakes. But will they? That's the question.

Chances of the PS4 being a flop are pretty high, the whole track pad thing on the controller has been done before, and let's face it, nobody really likes that shit, it's just like when the DS first came out, everyone was amazed by it, and the main selling point for it (the touch screen) got boring after about a week, and I personally thing that the PS4 will be no different, developing games for it probably won't be the easiest thing ever, either.

RIP PlayStation

I think Sony is trying to be the next Microsoft here. Microsoft's Xbox360 became such a success because it was the first 'big thing' in the new generation of consoles. With the improved online support, all these cool features, and nice controllers, everyone bought it and that's why it's all the rage. Sony came late to the party and ended up taking a hit in the sales department because of it.

This new generation is looking pretty bad. The only good thing so far is the 3DS. The WiiU is a complete gimmicky flop with next to no games for it, the Vita is an absolute failure with the same reasons as the WiiU, and Sony is looking to jump on their opportunity. So far, from what I've seen and heard, the PS4 is the most promising part of the new generation, while everything else (aside from the 3DS) didn't seem to be researched enough by the companies and they're taking massive financial hits because of this. The PS4 wants to do some gimmicks while still keeping what works. Hopefully some developers find some use for that track pad, but in reality I doubt it'll be anything more than a neat little addition that gets annoying after a week. However, the controllers still keep the same buttons triggers and new and improved sticks, which means they're still sticking to their 'hardcore' shit. The new and improved system specs and higher graphics are nice, but the only way to determine how good they really are is to see it in person, so I can't judge too much from here.

If Sony does this shit right and kickstarts the next generation with a successful console, they'll leave Microsoft in the dust and take the spotlight. Being successful isn't just about being good, it's also about timing. That's why the Dreamcast failed. Amazing console, horrible timing. I just hope Sony doesn't rush the console in an attempt to beat Microsoft to the punch, because after the reveal, Sony basically said "Come the fuck at me Microsoft, your move." I hope Sony does this right. If not them, then Microsoft will claim the new generation as their bitch.

tl;dr PS4 looks promising. Hope Sony doesn't rush in order to release before Microsoft does. Your move, Microsoft.

Also, I haven't been on these forums in for-fucking-ever. 'Sup guys?

Any new console / platform could flop... The PS4 (Orbis) will be fine, chill.

The PS4 is going to flop because consoles themselves are starting to wane.

I commend Sony on basically pinkie-swearing they'll hand job every last casual cock and average joe-jimmie they can possibly get their hands on but the only way we're really going to make gaming universal is if we break down the stupid exclusivity wall that's been obsolete since 2007. Giving indie games some of the breathing room that comes with developing universally and giving players the option to play all the games they want, with the hardware they want to play it with.

At 2/21/13 11:36 PM, naronic wrote:

make gaming universal is if we break down the stupid exclusivity wall that's been obsolete since 2007.

Why would anyone do that? Doing that would create absolutely zero need for innovation between the companies. Hardware and Software alike needs some form of exclusivity in order for the magical capitalist system to work. If all the companies had zero exclusives, what makes one console better than the other? What really makes you want one instead of the other? They're all the same, dammit! The market would go to a steady decline if consoles were universal. You need exclusivity.

At 2/22/13 12:34 AM, explodingbunnies wrote:

At 2/21/13 11:36 PM, naronic wrote:

make gaming universal is if we break down the stupid exclusivity wall that's been obsolete since 2007.

Why would anyone do that? Doing that would create absolutely zero need for innovation between the companies. Hardware and Software alike needs some form of exclusivity in order for the magical capitalist system to work. If all the companies had zero exclusives, what makes one console better than the other? What really makes you want one instead of the other? They're all the same, dammit! The market would go to a steady decline if consoles were universal. You need exclusivity.

We shouldn't have hardware capitalism in a place where we don't need it, especially if we have hardware companies like Nvidia, Dell, Intel and AMD that already provide that service for us. PC gaming hardware is improving at a much faster rate than consoles anyway which sort of invalidates your argument, the PS4's specs aren't even up to the top 2011 PC standards. The point is to not have Consoles in the future as a pretentious hardware-wall separating fans, games, and gaming alike and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.

Games absolutely don't need console exclusivity to better themselves, they compete against other games.

At 2/22/13 01:34 AM, naronic wrote:
We shouldn't have hardware capitalism in a place where we don't need it,

Capitalism is always necessary dude. UNLESS YER' ONE DEM' RED COMMIE BASTARDS.

especially if we have hardware companies like Nvidia, Dell, Intel and AMD that already provide that service for us.

Who do you think supplies parts for the next gen consoles?

PC gaming hardware is improving at a much faster rate than consoles anyway which sort of invalidates your argument,

PC's are also upwards of a thousand dollars for one that can run modern games on high settings, and that's if you build it yourself. pre-builts are even more for a good one.

the PS4's specs aren't even up to the top 2011 PC standards.

They are. Where did you get that from? Have you read the spec sheet? Also, price point. PS4 won't be 800+ dollars. It'll probably be in the 300 range.

The point is to not have Consoles in the future as a pretentious hardware-wall separating fans, games, and gaming alike and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.

Digital distribution is cool, except for people with bad/no internet. I personally prefer to own physical copies of games.

Games absolutely don't need console exclusivity to better themselves, they compete against other games.

Exclusivity is for the consoles. It makes them sell better. It's all one big market. You need consoles for games. A console is worthless without games, and games can't be played without a console. If all consoles were the same internally, and all games were just digital distribution to everything, what would even be the point in picking one console over the other? Why would one company need to innovate and change the way games are played? You need this kind of system in order to grow and expand the market.

Are you a game communist?

Remember, boldtext makes you right.

At 2/22/13 01:34 AM, naronic wrote: We shouldn't have hardware capitalism in a place where we don't need it,

Hey, dumbass. It's all capitalism. With the exception of games such as America's Army, all game developers, publishers, and console manufacturers are private companies competing for profits.

These companies are going to make deals, buy each other out, and generally try to make their game/console look like the best one. It's called competition, it's the reason why we have exclusivity, and it's what drives gaming to be, you know, good.

especially if we have hardware companies like Nvidia, Dell, Intel and AMD that already provide that service for us. PC gaming hardware is improving at a much faster rate than consoles anyway which sort of invalidates your argument,

What? His argument was that exclusivity breeds competition (BTW, PC has exclusives too. Tons of them, including damn near every RTS ever released), not that Sony's specs are better than Nvidia's.

the PS4's specs aren't even up to the top 2011 PC standards.

Because Sony wants people to be able to afford the fucking thing. Yeah, a top notch PC has better specs than the PS4, but it's also far outside the price range of the typical consumer. So unless Sony wants a relapse of the infamous "599 US Dollars" meme, they're going to keep the price within the realm of plausibility.

The point is to not have Consoles in the future as a pretentious hardware-wall separating fans, games, and gaming alike

But then what would be the consumer's incentive to buy one console over another, or for that matter, to buy more than one console? If the consumer has no incentive to pick one console over another, then the manufacturer has no incentive to compete.

and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.

Thereby limiting gaming entirely to the people with good internet. Brilliant strategy!

Games absolutely don't need console exclusivity to better themselves, they compete against other games.

Not always. For instance, the Uncharted series was made to help Sony sell PS3s, which is why they feature the series prominently in their ads as opposed to, say, Call of Duty.

Manufacturers fund these big games like Uncharted and Halo to help them move systems, and not just copies.

At 2/22/13 01:56 AM, explodingbunnies wrote:

At 2/22/13 01:34 AM, naronic wrote: Are you a game communist?

You got me

Who do you think supplies parts for the next gen consoles?

The point is to not have consoles

PC's are also upwards of a thousand dollars for one that can run modern games on high settings, and that's if you build it yourself. pre-builts are even more for a good one.

Actually a good standard prebuilt PC costs about 400 to 500 dollars. Building a gaming PC yourself (assuming you're going mid-range) should be around 500 dollars as well.
(these are all approximations)
CPU: 150$
Memory: 60$
competent graphics card: 200$
New hard-drive(Assuming you aren't supplying one yourself): 100$
fans and other extranalities (assuming you aren't supplying them yourself): 20$
roughly 530$

Both kinds of PC's are upgradable to a much greater degree than any console which means, if you so choose, you can always be on the cutting edge of gaming technology.

At 2/22/13 02:41 AM, naronic wrote: The point is to not have consoles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAryFIuRxmQ

Good to know where your allegiances lie.

Yeah, I prefer PC, but you might be the only SOB I know of who says we shouldn't have consoles at all.

Actually a good standard prebuilt PC costs about 400 to 500 dollars. Building a gaming PC yourself (assuming you're going mid-range) should be around 500 dollars as well.
roughly 530$

And PS3 is $299. Obviously, there's a good market for an expensive PC, but the average joe still can't afford to buy a sizeable rig, let alone to upgrade it every time a new graphics card comes out.

Both kinds of PC's are upgradable to a much greater degree than any console which means, if you so choose, you can always be on the cutting edge of gaming technology.

You are arguing that because sports cars exist, there shouldn't be SUVs. Not everyone can afford top notch shit, that doesn't mean they should be excluded from the market altogether.

and move to digital distribution and cloud gaming.

Thereby limiting gaming entirely to the people with good internet. Brilliant strategy!

How many people who regularly game have bad internet nowadays?
Almost every game these days comes with a standard multiplayer mode just to appease the growing number of gamers whom do almost nothing but play with other people through multiplayer. If you don't have good internet you'd play single player games on consoles.
It would be the same situation with PC.

At 2/22/13 02:54 AM, naronic wrote: How many people who regularly game have bad internet nowadays?

My friend Sectus, for one; people who live outside the range of the best providers, for two; people who just can't afford the best services, for three; and myself during certain times of the year, for four.

If you don't have good internet you'd play single player games on consoles.

Those exist, ya know. Not every game is CoD and Battlefield, companies like Bethesda make truckloads selling physical copies of single player games. In theory, gamers with crappy internet are alot more inclined to give their business to games like Fallout instead of games like Halo.

It would be the same situation with PC.

Not if everything switches to digital distribution and cloud gaming.

Yeah, I prefer PC, but you might be the only SOB I know of who says we shouldn't have consoles at all.

I'm not saying I hate the Xbox or PS3, or really that they're bad machines, they just provide a competition that doesn't need to be made anymore.
Consoles were relevant back in the 90's and maybe early 2000's largely because it provided a service that PC's didn't at the time, a kind of pickup and play convenience that gaming had when most games weren't so bloated with needless social software, DLC, and patches; and didn't feel like it needed that stuff either.

We had no real concept of the universality of game hardware because game consoles back then actually had significant differences which not only changed their performance but the games made for them (An effect that can be seen with multiplatform games such as Doom); as well as the philosophy and approach each console took to selling itself.

The Genesis had significant differences from the SNES and the original Xbox had significant differences from the PS2; differences that actually made certain consoles differentiate in quality by an expansive margin and give the whole situation the right to wear the name "competition".

Nowadays we have a pretty good idea of what a game console should be like: social, usually have hardware intended for another medium fused with it (PS3 bluray), internet connection, 4 controllers, 1080p capability, the works.
You could call the Xbox360, PS3 vs WiiU an actual competition but otherwise this "competition" only amounts to 3 rabid greyhounds clawing at any sort of new technology or company they can get their paws on and wringing any amount of money they can get out of the empty carcass, when they're not trying to rip off and wring money out of themselves. Backwards compatibility be damned.

But moreover any of these qualities the 3 consoles most want can already be achieved infinitely more efficiently on PC, with the only "console competition" being which company, not console or even hardware, you swear to.
We get sucked into another console war, High end ego's get handjobs, and we get fucked over.

Ultimately the only competition that should be going on in gaming is the games themselves. Games can be used to sell products but not have the requirement of having that product to play them. Uncharted and Halo are exclusives but they haven't been improved over time due to their exclusivity and games like Call of Duty move more units then them both due to the popularity they gathered from their un-exclusivity.

An environment of universality is better for indie game developers as well as Steam has shown.

Not if everything switches to digital distribution and cloud gaming.
My friend Sectus, for one; people who live outside the range of the best providers, for two; people who just can't afford the best services, for three; and myself during certain times of the year, for four.

If we drop cloud gaming and just stick to digital distribution I put my money on almost anyone being able to download a game today regardless of their internet. The situation would be exactly the same with or without consoles. If you can play online, you can play online, if you can't, there's single player. Your games would just be all in one place on your computer.

Behold, the ultimate politician. Brilliantly able to talk for hours on end without ever answering the bloody question.

Tell me, the gamers who can't afford $500-1,000 rigs, how in god's name are they supposed to keep playing without consoles?

At 2/22/13 03:52 AM, naronic wrote: I'm not saying I hate the Xbox or PS3, or really that they're bad machines, they just provide a competition that doesn't need to be made anymore.

Uh, no. In a capitalistic system, competition is always necessary.

Yes, game consoles nowadays are far more "standardized" than they were in the past. So what? That isn't an argument, that's an observation, and it has nothing to do with your argument that hardware competition is somehow a bad thing. Just because a statement is true doesn't mean it has any bearing on your point.

Just like how PC has advantages over consoles, consoles have their advantages over PC, including ease of use, split-screen, and that one sticky little issue you never want to confront, price.

Also, I find it funny that you mention backwards compatibility. You ever try booting up a game from the '90s on a modern rig? Harder than it looks, ain't it?

Consoles and PC are different markets for different players. Eliminating either one is just retarded.

If we drop cloud gaming and just stick to digital distribution I put my money on almost anyone being able to download a game today regardless of their internet.

Unless they had none at all, were down to about 10 KB/s, or just didn't have enough hard drive space.

Once again, digital downloads and physical copies are different markets for different players.

At 2/22/13 02:41 AM, naronic wrote:

At 2/22/13 01:56 AM, explodingbunnies wrote:

At 2/22/13 01:34 AM, naronic wrote: Are you a game communist?

You got me

Who do you think supplies parts for the next gen consoles?

The point is to not have consoles

PC's are also upwards of a thousand dollars for one that can run modern games on high settings, and that's if you build it yourself. pre-builts are even more for a good one.

Actually a good standard prebuilt PC costs about 400 to 500 dollars. Building a gaming PC yourself (assuming you're going mid-range) should be around 500 dollars as well.
(these are all approximations)
CPU: 150$
Memory: 60$
competent graphics card: 200$
New hard-drive(Assuming you aren't supplying one yourself): 100$
fans and other extranalities (assuming you aren't supplying them yourself): 20$
roughly 530$

Wow you only forgot to mention that you'll need at least a 600W PSU if you want to have a mid gaming PC nowadays, and even that you'll have to upgrade in the next year or two. Oh you also forgot that you'll want a PC Case, oh and a Motherboard, sound card, wireless card and an OS, that's at least $300+ worth of stuff that isn't even going to play everything at high at 1080. If you want a decent gaming PC, you're going to have to spend at least $900, and that's in the American market, here in Europe, and over in Asia PC parts are more expensive, we're looking at paying the equivalent of $1,200 for a good PC.

the PS4 is future proof, it will last you a good 10 years, in that time you'll have to completely replace your PC at least once, quite possibly twice.

Both kinds of PC's are upgradable to a much greater degree than any console which means, if you so choose, you can always be on the cutting edge of gaming technology.

I highly doubt it will. Just like with the original PlayStation they asked developers what needed improving and what they liked about the console. This will be good because that way, Sony will take in the comments and use the it to make the PS4 a better console. Besides they aren't going to make the price high, seriously guys, they have learnt from their mistakes of the PS3 launch, after all look at the others before PS3, they were reasonably priced, so why won't the PS4 be?

Wow you only forgot to mention that you'll need at least a 600W PSU if you want to have a mid gaming PC nowadays, and even that you'll have to upgrade in the next year or two. Oh you also forgot that you'll want a PC Case, oh and a Motherboard, sound card, wireless card and an OS, that's at least $300+ worth of stuff that isn't even going to play everything at high at 1080.
Tell me, the gamers who can't afford $500-1,000 rigs, how in god's name are they supposed to keep playing without consoles?

You act like you can't provide a PC Case, a motherboard, a sound and wireless card, and an OS if you've ever owned a computer before, that's a nitpicked issue. I have a very cheap gaming fan (about 30 dollars), and I can play almost any new game at mid-to high range settings.
You don't have to pay over 700$ for a top range gaming PC if you know what you're doing, and insisting that the required cost of a good gaming PC is over 1000$ is very ignorant.

Ultimately the cost of modern hardware is and has been getting cheaper and more accessible to the average consumer since the early 2000's, and it will continue to do so.
Unlimited Detail, the cloud and other such technologies will ultimately break down the big boy admissions gate for developers of all sides of the gaming spectrum, as well as for consumers.
The only thing that could hurt this process is the exclusivity that comes with consoles.

the PS4 is future proof, it will last you a good 10 years, in that time you'll have to completely replace your PC at least once, quite possibly twice.

The PS3 didn't even last 6 years before being being replaced by the PS4, and the same thing goes for the PS2, and the PS1, and consoles in general. All the new games in about a year will be in development for the PS4 and the backwards compatibility still won't be there.
I really don't get why people insist this point is true, the average life span of a gaming PC is around the average life span of a console.

Uh, no. In a capitalistic system, competition is always necessary.

You're right, in a capitalistic system competition is always necessary, just not in the places we don't need it.

Yes, game consoles nowadays are far more "standardized" than they were in the past. So what?

So that means there's no "competition" to be had anymore, we already have the ultimate standardized system available to us everyday 24/7. The Xbox and PS3 are just trying to ape that with all this social crap based off internet connectivity but what are they really trying to be? Devices where you can play games, share and chat with your friends, and do other activities like watch movies with? That's called a PC.

I watched the PS4 reveal show and heard all this hollow talk about "opening up to the average consumer", "making gaming easier for the average joe", when they don't realize all the "average joe's" are flocking away from consoles downloading universally digitally distributed apps like Angry Birds for their Iphone, Android, and Samsung devices.

A centralized place or system where we can simply keep games, download games, mod games, archive games (very important), and just enjoy games without having to buy anything other than a working computer to play all of them is a place where gaming will benefit, in a lot of the same ways home-video and DVD's benefited. Services like Onlive are already promising this, and services like Steam are already providing this.

There will still be hardware competition in the background where we need it; just benefiting computers in general, not sponged up in gaming itself.

Unless they had none at all, were down to about 10 KB/s, or just didn't have enough hard drive space.

The chances you'd be able to afford a console and games on it already and not have an internet connection are pretty slim.
Plus, with all the devices with built in internet I see this fast becoming a non-issue later in this decade.

I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium.

At 2/22/13 03:52 AM, naronic wrote: Ultimately the only competition that should be going on in gaming is the games themselves.

I somewhat agree that games should be the competitors, not hardware. I don't really like to hear that opinion coming from a PC elitist who has abandoned the nostalgia of a console , no doubt any console zealot would.

But I've also had a bit of admiration for the "aesthetic" of the console war - advertisements, promotional art, heck, Deviant Art submissions that feature characters of different consoles/generations battling it out. Even fan fiction about the console wars can be pretty entertaining if the writer knows to start a new paragraph with every new speaker. So I don't want the console wars to just "go away" for that selfish reason.

Yes, we could build a car that would solve every man or woman's day-to-day problems. It would be a single car model, perfect for everything, cup holders, clean energy, heated seats. But then - what fun would there be in owning a car anymore? Car commercials wouldn't waste thousands/millions of dollars on CGI to draw us in, gangsters wouldn't look nearly as cool during drive-bys, and chase scenes in films wouldn't be anything special.

I wouldn't want the console wars to go away because I'd be kissing visual entertainment goodbye. And I don't think most gamers would want to abandon consoles for PC gaming because it would usher in an age of taciturn, insipid gaming/hardware in addition to other intermittent problems.

Tell me that gaming companies haven't had issues with getting their stuff hacked in the past. The closer we get to everybody being on one (perfect; refer to Tron Legacy) system and having a massive or even partial technical expertise, the more hacked Call of Duty, Gears, or World of WarCraft games. The more multiplayer conflicts like with Diablo 3 and not being able to play the game at all due to a patch being implemented. (just like how Clu2 took control of the Grid and made all of the games more awesome)

Plus gaming-related interaction would get really dull.

Person A: Hey man, let's start a LAN party. You got your laptop?
Person B: Hells yeah, and check out my [technobabble]! Plus I doubled the RAM! Who da ubermensch?
Person A: You da ubermensch!
Person C: Hey, did you guys hear about the newest patch?
Person A: No, what was it? I still have Patch 6.551511
Person C: Well, if you had Patch 6.551512, your sword will have a pommel attached to it and you can now put engravings onto your bullets!
Person B: Sweet!
Person A: I guess that's better than Patch 6.45824 when they took out Armor Lock.
Person C: Are you kidding me? Armor Lock is for noobs.
Person A: Are you kidding me? I loved Armor Lock in Version 3! Armor Lock was awesome!
Person C: Then go back to playing Version 3 then, noob. Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't exist anymore.

Once again, my question has gone unanswered.

How the fuck is a consumer who can't afford a good PC expected to keep gaming in a world without consoles?

Narry, I want you to answer this question. Dodging questions like you did before isn't a good strategy for winning arguments.

At 2/22/13 04:30 PM, naronic wrote: You act like you can't provide a PC Case, a motherboard, a sound and wireless card, and an OS if you've ever owned a computer before

And if you haven't?

You don't have to pay over 700$ for a top range gaming PC

That's still $400 more than a PS3.

You're right, in a capitalistic system competition is always necessary, just not in the places we don't need it.

It's needed everywhere. Just like there is no such thing as an organism that can survive without food, there is no market that can survive without competition.

So that means there's no "competition" to be had anymore, we already have the ultimate standardized system available to us everyday 24/7. The Xbox and PS3 are just trying to ape that with all this social crap based off internet connectivity but what are they really trying to be? Devices where you can play games, share and chat with your friends, and do other activities like watch movies with? That's called a PC.

If people still buy consoles, then that means there is still a market demand. Once again, this is because consoles have their own set of advantages that appeal to a different consumer than PCs do. Yet another question you have failed to answer.

I watched the PS4 reveal show and heard all this hollow talk about "opening up to the average consumer", "making gaming easier for the average joe", when they don't realize all the "average joe's" are flocking away from consoles downloading universally digitally distributed apps like Angry Birds for their Iphone, Android, and Samsung devices.

That's patently retarded. You are completely ignoring the existence of consumers who prefer console games. Gaming isn't divided completely into "SUPER MANLY PC HARDCORE MASTER RACE" and "FARMVILLE ANGRY BIRDS CASUALS DURR HURR" like you seem to imagine it is.

Please. Stop this bullshit.

A centralized place or system where we can simply keep games, download games, mod games, archive games (very important), and just enjoy games without having to buy anything other than a working computer to play all of them is a place where gaming will benefit, in a lot of the same ways home-video and DVD's benefited.

Unless, once again, they can't fucking afford a good computer.

This issue continues to plague your argument like fucking smallpox, and yet you still continue to ignore it.

Services like Onlive are already promising this, and services like Steam are already providing this.

Theoretically, Onlive can solve the problem of system requirements. Of course, Onlive is only really accessible to people with impeccable internet speeds, so it's still not viable for the average consumer.

There will still be hardware competition in the background where we need it; just benefiting computers in general, not sponged up in gaming itself.

Yes, but without the "Console Wars", we're still talking about a notable dip in competition, not to mention a lack of games which would not exist but for exclusivity.

The chances you'd be able to afford a console and games on it already and not have an internet connection are pretty slim.

But they still exist.

Plus, with all the devices with built in internet I see this fast becoming a non-issue later in this decade.

Once again, unless you live in a place without a major carrier.

I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium.

Once again, consoles appeal to a completely different market than PCs do, and exclusive titles are how they compete with each other.

And BTW, yes. Consoles DO need exclusive titles to compete. Imagine a world where Halo: CE was multiplatform, do you think the original Xbox would have ever taken off? It came out long after the PS2 did, and the hardware differences were minimal. Exclusives were what sold the system.

At 2/22/13 05:34 PM, Protagonist wrote:

At 2/22/13 05:29 PM, Natick wrote: You already had your post.

Git yer filthy paws off of mine.

Grr. This is my forth post and probably the last I'll be able to make in 20 minutes and I'm using to tell you YOU'RE WRONG.

Natick pulls this trollshit all the time. Just ignore him, like any other troll.

BTW, Natick, I have Hush script, so I can't even read your bullshit.

At 2/22/13 06:00 PM, Natick wrote:

Shut up, Natick

How the fuck is a consumer who can't afford a good PC expected to keep gaming in a world without consoles?
Narry, I want you to answer this question. Dodging questions like you did before isn't a good strategy for winning arguments.

"I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium."

As I've also stated before, the gaming accessibility bar in general is going to drop with new technologies such as Unlimited Detail, and new services such as Onlive, as well as competition on the hardware front rather than the gaming front as all this takes place.

Comparing the PS3's price range to that of a modern gaming computer would be like comparing a used 2006 Sedan to a 2012 sports car. The PS3 back in it's eve cost about 500 to 600$.
The 360 costing 300 to 400$ depending on whether you wanted backwards compatibility back in 2006

I think one of the misconceptions of my argument is that I'm a PC elitist that thinks consoles should die because PC gamz ownz. If you're responding to that imaginary Naronic then your counter argument looses all value. I'm arguing for the universal distribution of games, the unity of the entire game industry to make games we want to play and compete with each other on the basis of having the better GAME, not the better hardware required to play the game on.

I simply use the PC as a vantage point because a lot of advancements are being made in this front like ONLIVE which you don't need a good graphics card to use or even a god-like internet connection, 3 to 5mbpsand even that's likely to change in the future as services like this get more widespread.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/9/3230626/akamai-global-inter net-speed

Unless, once again, they can't fucking afford a good computer.

You also need to specify good.
A computer coming at 1200$ isn't good, it's godlike, and meant to be only for the hardest of hardcore enthusiasts
A 500$ custom or prebuilt computer can be classified as a good gaming computer.

http://www.walmart.com/browse/electronics/desktop-computers/
3944_3951_132982/?_refineresult=true&povid=cat3951-env201969 -moduleB091812-l%20LinkFC3Desktops

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/iBuyPower+-+Desktop+-+4GB+Memory +-+500GB+Hard+Drive/6979887.p?id=1218818465511&skuId=6979887

and once again Onlive.

Yes, but without the "Console Wars", we're still talking about a notable dip in competition, not to mention a lack of games which would not exist but for exclusivity.
And BTW, yes. Consoles DO need exclusive titles to compete. Imagine a world where Halo: CE was multiplatform, do you think the original Xbox would have ever taken off? It came out long after the PS2 did, and the hardware differences were minimal. Exclusives were what sold the system.

Unless you really believe games born out of console exclusivity such as Halo, Spyro, Mario or Uncharted have really bettered themselves or have been game changing to the industry as a whole I don't really see the problem. Sure they might have helped sell systems but it did nothing in return for the games themselves.

Games like Call of Duty, on the other hand, managed to completely take over the game industry and prosper in money because of the popularity it gained from being able to be on all consoles and on PC.
Games shouldn't have to stick it's neck out for hardware, hardware should be doing that for games.

And once again people can still own consoles if they so choose but consoles themselves shouldn't have any power over gaming.

At 2/22/13 07:13 PM, naronic wrote: "I'm also not saying that all consoles should be burned and destroyed, they should simply become irrelevant to gaming's future. They should not have any power of exclusivity in this medium."

Don't even start with the self-quotes. That one wasn't even relevant to your argument.

As I've also stated before, the gaming accessibility bar in general is going to drop with new technologies such as Unlimited Detail, and new services such as Onlive, as well as competition on the hardware front rather than the gaming front as all this takes place.

Though it will probably help matters, I highly doubt it's going to completely buck trends and make PC gaming accessible to all.

Comparing the PS3's price range to that of a modern gaming computer would be like comparing a used 2006 Sedan to a 2012 sports car. The PS3 back in it's eve cost about 500 to 600$.
The 360 costing 300 to 400$ depending on whether you wanted backwards compatibility back in 2006

The PS3's original price tag was a legendary blunder, and one that no one in their right mind would ever wish to repeat. The 360 is more along the lines of what I would consider to be a normal console price tag, and is far more accessible to a consumer than a decent PC is.

I think one of the misconceptions of my argument is that I'm a PC elitist that thinks consoles should die because PC gamz ownz.

Except that's exactly what you've been arguing this whole time.

"The PS4 is going to flop because consoles themselves are starting to wane."
"The point is to not have consoles"
"Devices where you can play games, share and chat with your friends, and do other activities like watch movies with? That's called a PC."

And even right now, you are arguing that consoles should fade away, lose influence, exclusivity, and all competition. That everyone should just hop on the magical PC bandwagon and ride it into the future of gaming.

You can't pedal backwards and forwards at the same time.

I simply use the PC as a vantage point because a lot of advancements are being made in this front like ONLIVE which you don't need a good graphics card to use or even a god-like internet connection, 3 to 5mbpsand even that's likely to change in the future as services like this get more widespread.

2.85. Guess who just got locked out of the future of gaming, along with a quarter of the damn country.

A 500$ custom or prebuilt computer can be classified as a good gaming computer.

But that's still more than all but the most expensive consoles.

and once again Onlive.

2.85

Unless you really believe games born out of console exclusivity such as Halo, Spyro, Mario or Uncharted have really bettered themselves or have been game changing to the industry as a whole I don't really see the problem.

Maybe not Spyro, but the other three have absolutely changed the industry.

Mario popularized platformers, now look at the industry.

Halo: CE had a regenerating life bar, now look at the industry.

Halo 2 single-handedly secured the dominance of Xbox live, now look at the industry.

Uncharted fused gameplay and storytelling into an experience that felt almost exactly like an interactive Hollywood blockbuster, now look at the industry. Hell, Uncharted 2 is considered by many to be the industry standard for any third-person shooter nowadays, and all because Sony wanted to compete with Microsoft.

Without exclusivity, these games just wouldn't exist.

Games like Call of Duty, on the other hand, managed to completely take over the game industry and prosper in money because of the popularity it gained from being able to be on all consoles and on PC.

The success of a multiplatform game doesn't diminish the success of an exclusive game.

Games shouldn't have to stick it's neck out for hardware, hardware should be doing that for games.

When the game is being published/developed by a hardware manufacturer, then that ceases to be true.

And once again people can still own consoles if they so choose but consoles themselves shouldn't have any power over gaming.

Except if consoles stop competing, they will fade out, stop being made, and eventually we'll all just be stuck with PCs and nothing else.