Console game development has shifted from predominantly eastern (Japanese) focus (up to the PS2 era) to currently being dominated by western developers who have historically been PC focused. If you don’t agree with this statement, then you can stop reading now. It's basically the foundation upon which my argument is based. Console hardware philosophy is changing to suit the current software makers whose design philosophy requires a more consistent hardware upgrade cycle.
So, let’s start at the beginning. No let’s not, thanks to videogames, I no longer have the attention span for that. After the videogame crash in the 80’s, a resurgence in console gaming came from Japan, initially via companies like Nintendo and Sega. The software for these consoles also predominantly came from Japan. Getting your game on a game console was no easy task thanks to some of the policies at Nintendo and Sega. It often meant your title being exclusive to the platform. PC gaming stayed on PCs and console games stayed on consoles. There was very little overlap.
There has always been a technological gap as to what was possible on PC games as opposed to what was possible in console games. Thing is, because you could not get most console games on PC at launch, it never bothered most people. Console games had their own domain and their own expectations because they had their own unique software and ecosystem. They were compared to each other and not PC games.
A lot of people raise their eyebrows (and blood pressure) upon reading scores for some Nintendo-made games. How exactly does Super Mario Galaxy get a 10/10 for story? It’s because Nintendo has their own controlled ecosystem which enables them to manage expectations. This ecosystem almost exclusively uses stylized graphics instead of the photo-realism that other game makers chase. Nintendo games are compared to other Nintendo games and not with the rest of the triple A market. You can’t make a game like The Last of US alongside a side scrolling Mario game and have the both of them get 10/10 for story. Well, you probably could, depending on which website we’re talking about, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Nobody buys a Need for Speed title for the 3DS and expects it to match the console version. However, because of how it was positioned by Sony, people expected that very thing from Vita versions of games. The Vita has an incredible game library, but not the library that was alluded to at launch by Sony. The point is, console games, for a long time, had their own rules and their own expectations and was set apart critically from PC games.
So what happened?
A majority of console gamers in Japan migrated away from game consoles at the end of the PS2 era. At first they went to handhelds, which prompted the release of the PSP. Then they migrated to mobile phones, which means no Vita 2. Console game-makers followed them. It doesn’t matter how good your hardware is, it means nothing without software.
The responses were varied. Nintendo did what they always did. They continued to make high quality first-party software that was exclusive to their platform. They did not rapidly expand their first party studios or aggressively court third party developers in the west. Their market share would decrease after the Wii, but they would stay profitable. They still have a loyal fan base despite their software droughts and always will. However, the majority of consumers will not pay upwards of $300 for a console for a few titles a year, no matter how good those titles are. There is too much competition in the gaming market for this. It’s probably the reason that Nintendo are rumored to be consolidating their console and hardware platforms into a single device. They lack the software volume to support both platforms in a commercially viable way. They have some third party arrangements and those keep their handheld business more than acceptable. Now, they have dipped their toe into mobile and it will be interesting to see how they move on and evolve as a company.
With the PS3, Sony kinda tried the same thing. The PS3 would be difficult to develop for and they knew it. They saw it as an opportunity for their first party games to outshine the other makers. . I’m gonna leave a link for them admitting to that here: http://venturebeat.com/2013...
They saw the exodus of Japanese developers and wanted to convince themselves (and us) that their in-house development would be enough to carry the console.
The problem with this plan was the Xbox 360. It was less powerful on paper, but it was simpler to program for and hence, most multiplatform games looked better on it. Microsoft had better relations with western PC developers as a consequence of their windows platform. Early in the cycle, Microsoft began getting a lot of third party games from pc game makers, some of which became exclusives. So Sony’s own first party game makers struggled, third party struggled even more on the PS3, and the Xbox 360 profited by courting the people that no other console maker had done before in a serious or consistent way.
What also did not help Sony was the fact that gaming tastes had changed. Final fantasy 13 was a great example of this. I had no problem with a linear dungeon crawler with an obtuse story once it had a solid battle system (which FF13 did have). I had grown accustomed to this over the years. However, a new generation of gamers, enamored with open world games, blasted it to shreds for being too linear. Simultaneously, they fell in love with other linear games with chest-high walls like Gears of War, but those games had guns so that was okay. All joking aside, that generation of consoles represented a clash of (development) cultures, where traditional console games and PC games were now placed side by side on the same platform for consumer sampling. The demand for games with more traditional elements and philosophy declined. Western developers now made games for a predominantly western audience.
Sony’s dream of supporting their console with mostly first party offerings was dead. They needed to regain control of the living room and that meant going head to head with Microsoft. They could not compete with Nintendo for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reasons was that their console cost twice as much as the Wii. That was a separate market. They were at the high end of the market and the competition there was Microsoft and PC.
This led them to start courting western PC developers aggressively. They began to support them and share technology to get them on board. They had to work to turn around the ps3. To their credit, they did just that. It’s something that they continued to do with the PS4 and VITA. In fact, the relationships they forged with western developers saved the Vita from becoming a complete paperweight. I love the fact that I can play some PC games on a handheld and if Sony does not make another handheld, I would welcome another that can do this easily.
When Valve announced their intention to enter the living room space, the cynical response was to post a picture of a really long HDMI cable which cost a fraction of what they were proposing. It did raise an interesting question though. Was there a market for those who wanted better graphical performance in the living room sans the HDMI cable? If the software environment for consoles and the PC had so much overlap, and had so much in common, would there be an eventual migration to the PC as a result? Would the pursuit of graphical fidelity lead to a loss in the install base? Added to this is the reality that if consoles take 5-6 years to be updated, in that time, games would be released on PC that cannot be ported to consoles without significant compromises. Releasing a game on your platform 4 years after its PC release means fewer sales and less money. I’m not going to wait that long to play something I want. I may migrate to PC. Once there, I may not come back. The picture had become clear. By adopting the PC games, console makers had adopted the philosophy. PC games, the triple A ones, are about power and that means upgrades.
With the Steam OS, valve admitted that there was a section of console gamers that wanted the power of PC games without the hassle of PC tinkering. I am one of those persons. It also opened the eyes of console makers who want to prevent an exodus of gamers who are attracted by all the bright shiny pixels that PC games offer. The software lines have now become blurred and while many may see console upgrades as little more than a cash grab, I believe that the reality is a bit more complicated than that. I have no problem with upgrading every 4-5 years as long as it’s all backwards compatible and I have no problem with the existence of games on newer hardware that I can’t play. I have the choice to upgrade to new hardware or not. Or play on PC. If backwards compatibility does not coincide with this new hardware philosophy, however, then my console days may be numbered.
Sucker Punch’s massive samurai adventure Ghost of Tsushima has come under fire because of the PSN requirement. However, unlike Helldivers 2, things are a lot different and more logical this time.
"Sony has made it clear long before its release that the PSN requirement is strictly for the online multi-player Legends mode in Ghost of Tsushima and the PlayStation overlay. Online connection or PSN is not applied to the single-player campaign, which is honestly what the game is all about."
CG writes: In this video we take a look at the full game of HAMMER95’s Mullet MadJack on PC in 4K. This is a rather cool rogue-like first-person shooter where you have to survive for 10 seconds by increasing your timer for each kill. Not the most original of ideas, but works wonders in context of the 80/90s aesthetic. Game releases May 15th.
Alchemist: The Potion Monger is available now of PC and consoles, and this review will tell you why it shouldn't be overlooked.
Next gen of consoles should support backwards compatibility since the current consoles and most PC games use x86 architecture. Last couple years more and more PC games are switching to x64 so I expect next gen consoles to make the switch too. x64 is 64 bit memory while x86 is 32 bit. x86 cant run x64 programs but x64 can run x86 programs. I dont see why the consoles wouldnt be backwards compatible unless these companies restricted them artificially.
The reality, IMO, was simply the fact that the last generation lasted entirely too long. The consoles took too long to start making money. The technology that they saw as the future was too expensive. So, instead of getting something that looked like the Neo and Scorpio on day one (for exorbitant prices) we simply got the PS4 and Xbox One. Don't be fooled. These would have been fine on their own. There wasn't going to be some mass exodus from the console ecosystem because PC's could do 4K gaming. However, both companies see this as the way that the industry is going and are trying to get a head start. So, we get the mid-gen upgrade.
In the future, I don't want new consoles every 3 years. I hope that is not the plan. I'd take them at 5 years minimum. What I would rather see is the choice from day one of an extremely powerful, more expensive system (for the core), and a standard unit for the masses. That way the choice is upfront.
I call this article bullshit. You didnt even knew you would have these so called "console tiers" until a while ago, and now, you effectively dont have them but still calls them a necessity?
Necessity? Sony has already said that the Neo will be their first and last mid-gen console, so, I dont think they view it as a necessity.