Well, Memory limitations did really hamper the PS3 so I hope Sony is keeping an eye on how they manage it this time around. The more the better when it comes to memory, especially because it's one of the cheaper components to add in. Having memory be your bottleneck in a console (again) would be unthinkable (...to me).
I'll be buying on day one and am really excited for the first party games. Sony has several studios that have been pretty hush for a while now, so I'm hoping there'll be one or two killer launch (first party) games to go alongside the system launch.
#1, No idea it was a she.
#2, I kept trying to listen for a "Sony"
#3, Not enough syllables for "Sony"
#4, I gave up trying to understand this gibberish years ago.
#5,
My guess is that's because a new console means Sony will be losing money for a few years until the console costs come down and they can start turning a profit again.
I'm most interested to see how they continue with services such as Playstation Plus and PSN games. I'd love to see PSN games move seamlessly to the new version, but that'd be a very smart move and I'm not sure I see them making it. Backwards compatibility is something I have almost zero hope for. I'd like to see it, but with the backlash on the PS3 for the launch cost I think they'll do tons to keep the cost down. Since that was among the first features to go on the PS3, I don't expect it back.
This is going to be the first console launch I don't see myself getting right away. Sony basically has my loyalty thanks to games like Uncharted, Infamous, LittleBigPlanet, Journey etc, but I'll probably hold off a year for this one. I have so many games now thanks to Playstation Plus I don't think I'll be able to get through them all within the next year and a half.
I don't see that happening.
The reason the PS3 was so expensive to produce was that Blu-ray players were brand new and still crazy expensive. There won't be any technology that parallels that in either new console.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
The reason the PS3 was so expensive to produce was that Blu-ray players were brand new and still crazy expensive. There won't be any technology that parallels that in either new console.
Not to mention their head-scratching proprietary 'Cell' CPU structure.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I know I've said it, but how much better can games get? Keep in mind I have not played a PC game since Civ 3
A lot better. Anyone who has only exclusively played on a console for the last generation or longer doesn't understand how far technology has progressed. I'd like to see developers become PC focused again and push the platform to the limits. This goes way beyond amazing looking graphics. I want to see more intelligent/adaptable AI, improved physics, less pop-in etc. I want games to be developed like the original Crysis. Where your current top of the line PC is unable to run the thing on max settings when the game is released. Melt my PC developers.
A lot better. Anyone who has only exclusively played on a console for the last generation or longer doesn't understand how far technology has progressed. I'd like to see developers become PC focused again and push the platform to the limits. This goes way beyond amazing looking graphics. I want to see more intelligent/adaptable AI, improved physics, less pop-in etc. I want games to be developed like the original Crysis. Where your current top of the line PC is unable to run the thing on max settings when the game is released. Melt my PC developers.
My PC is struggling through the current Crysis 3 MP Beta, but I assume that a 680/7970 would solve that. Even with a 580 it still looks phenomenal.
I know I've said it, but how much better can games get? Keep in mind I have not played a PC game since Civ 3
I play all my games on an Xbox and a 5 year old PC. The PC is definitely better graphics wise than the Xbox but neither were as good as playing at a friends house who had PC's less than a year old (capable of max settings). It was noticeably better playing the same game on his PC compared to mine.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. It's the same game, but with better hardware. It looks noticeably better.
The Following User Says Thank You to Burninator For This Useful Post:
The PhysX in Borderlands 2 is crazy. I remember sitting there farming a Badass challenge which had you shooting rock projectiles thrown by an enemy. By the time I had completed it I looked down and was surrounded by rubble. The level of physics detail in that game is pretty impressive.
The reason the PS3 was so expensive to produce was that Blu-ray players were brand new and still crazy expensive. There won't be any technology that parallels that in either new console.
I think aside from Nintendo, selling your console at a loss is par for the course at launch. While the PS3 was sold at more of a loss than the 360, Microsoft still lost approximately $125-$300 on each 360 sold when they first made available depending on who you believe (Sony meanwhile lost about $240 on each console... again, just estimates). It took a year for Microsoft to turn a profit on each system sold.
The Wii U is reportedly Nintendo's first offering to be sold at a loss (can't find a figure for how much though).
Man, I played Borderlands two on an ATI and seeing that I feel like I just missed half the game!
Going back home and playing it on my computer was a big disappointment. Although a downside was playing co-op with two other people there tends to be a lot of stuff flying around on the screen. A lot.
It's not the detail of things that need to improve, it's the scale of events that I hope increases in the next-gen. There are so many games out there that are supposed to give you this epic feeling and then there's a maximum of 10 bad guys on screen. I always wanted to play games with thousands of characters on screen at once all with AI that thinks individually, that's where games need to go. Take a game like Skyrim, there should be giant battles of orcs vs. humans on the planes or an entire batallion is standing on the doorstep of a dragon to confront him. I wanna see games where the gameplay looks like the trailer, imagine this scale of gameplay
Last edited by vektor; 02-07-2013 at 12:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to vektor For This Useful Post:
Planetside 2 has really large scale battles with multiplayer. Of course the majority of games don't even come close to what they have.
I've played Planetside 2 a lot and it sucks, however it's a step to where games could go. Planetside 2 is a pay to win kind of game and makes it miserable to play if you don't spend any money. Planetside 2 had the 3 kinds of plants and then smaller stations, same thing over and over
I know I've said it, but how much better can games get? Keep in mind I have not played a PC game since Civ 3
Until you watch game footage and are unable to distinguish it from live action, graphics can continue to improve. To say that movie quality CGI is the goal would be inaccurate, since most of us can tell when it's there pretty easily.
Unfortunately I think both movies and games are afflicted with a "good enough" standard, which is why it feels like advancement hasn't gone as quickly as in the late 90s and early 2000s. Then again, maybe now that we're 95% there, it's that final 5% that is the most difficult and expensive to achieve.
I'm excited to see where things go just because this is the first generation where I felt like I was playing movies. Not necessarily in terms of graphics, but in story telling and character engagement. Games like Uncharted and (while it's wildly unpopular) Heavenly Sword drew me in far more than any games before it.
