Are you tired of the current-gen/want the next-gen to come around?

[Nick Adams]

Sony may be able to find motivation to release a new console, mostly because the Move isn't exactly killing the market, and the Vita is actually making less money than the PSP (in the words of Craig Ferguson, remind you of anything?). If Sony wants to stay in the console business, they may have to announce a new console (maybe even ditching the PlayStation name) by the end of this year. It seems like, except for the most recent PS3, their other attempts have been, while interesting, not quite intriguing.

Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to be doing quite well with Kinect, either via compatibility with regular titles ("Better With KINECT") or just by releasing a lot of family friendly titles, as well as some titles that really use the purpose of the Kinect. They've even begun to develop the Kinect technology beyond just using it for a game console. If not for the fact that it was developed as a peripheral because they didn't really need it to be a separate console, the Kinect could have just straight up been Microsoft's new system. It's probably why they aren't planning to announce the next generation - technically, Kinect was their next generation, but they didn't feel like reworking all of the software. Part of me expects that the next Microsoft console will have a Kinect sensor either built in or included.

Honestly, though, what I really think is the reason for not having new consoles announced is that they don't want their launch titles to be tons of sequels to previous titles, coupled with new concepts for what amount to just FPS games with a different story. They need something else, something different - and the last truly different game that I can recall playing was Arkham City. Even then, Arkham City used a lot of the mechanics of Arkham Asylum, just on a bigger scale, with a more intricate plot, more villains, and more gadgets. On the other hand, every story has been told in some fashion or other, so maybe I just want different game mechanics. Like, less fighting and going bang, and more problem solving, or something.

For now, though, my 360 keeps me happy. Heck, I still play my PS2 every once in a while. I just want fun games, not something that will completely wow me and make me think that I'm playing a movie. You want something that is leaps and bounds ahead of current gaming, then get a PC. 360 is going to have games for at least the next three years. Let me try comparing this to military fighters - the fourth generation of jets have been around for quite a while. The F-16 is the oldest out of all of them, and is still in service. In fact, quite a few military forces use them, along with the F-14 (which was retired in the US). The F-15 is still in use in the USAF, and the F/A-18 is still in the US Navy. The F-22, on the other hand, the only fifth-generation fighter currently in service (to change soon because of the F-35 and the PAK fighter), has encountered numerous issues even during use, most recently a problem with its air filtration and air supply systems. It employs the latest technology, but just because it's being used doesn't mean that the military has suddenly retired the previous generation, well before the planned life span.

The 360 was planned to last 10 years. The PS3 was planned to last 9 or 10, depending on how their hand held sales did. Asking for them to be phased out even though it's not even two years out is foolish. The original XBox was only replaced because Sony was replacing the PS2, and the PS2 was two years out from the end of its planned life cycle at that point. Ironically, during the first two years of the PS3's existence, the PS2 were responsible for Sony's most profitable hardware sales (TVs, DVD players, sound systems, computers, and Blu-ray players included). Beyond that, some of the games released for the PS2 as its life cycle were ending were awesome, if unnoticed (I still play Rogue Galaxy, for example). With that kind of history, why would any console making company forsake consoles that are obviously popular, and might be more popular than whatever they introduce next?

You said it in your intro - a flawed sense of entitlement is the only reason for this topic. If you want a better system, build a PC. Or hell, go buy an Alienware PC. What you really want is a mind-blowing experience with hardware that doesn't cost more than $1000. You're not acting entitled, you're acting cheap. Go to EBay, get the hardware and the tower, find a free "how-to-build" guide, and you tell me if you can get something that gives a better experience with a larger hard drive and better graphics, for $600 or less (heck, get a gaming controller while you do it). Or maybe you could just go and find a computer with specs better than a 360 or a PS3 that costs the same as one of those systems. You'll still be paying the same for the games on said PC as on a console (or more if you play MMOs). But hey, if you can do it, I'll believe that you've got a point. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke out of your ass, because you're saying that Sony and Microsoft need to do something that just might not be possible at the price points that they've established for console gaming systems.

It's all works of fiction anyway. If the video game industry is annoying you so much by staying with what is making them money, start reading books. Chances are you'll have better stories than "shoot these particular enemies, repeatedly, in order to get to the next story point, which may or may not seem worth the effort" - or at least if you don't just buy whatever you happen to see first.

[Manifest]

It's during this period of a consoles life that you really see the best of it. Development has been honed over time and they can get the best out of the system. Of course you still get the whoppers but still...

I'm just gutted my PS3 isn't backwards compatible.

Mine is ^_^

Edited May 19, 2012 by Manifest

[apsham]

Heck, even if it isn't - it'll still play PS1 games and it's not like a PS2 is all that hard to come by.

[thatblindgeye]

I'm fine with my 360. I tend to only really have anywhere under 5 games at any one time, but it keeps me entertained when I have nothing else to do. I'm actually not looking too forward to whenever the next Xbox/Microsoft system is announced and released just for how much everything will cost. The console, the games, and the Gold membership... Even though I tend to pay for anything game related with Gamestop credit, I still get stingy with what and when I buy because of how pricey shit is. It probably helps that I can be incredibly picky with which games I get.

I know they would never get rid of it because of how much money it brings in, but I seriously wish the Xbox didn't require you to pay to get the full enjoyment of Gold. That is my one major gripe with the 360, having to pay for the games and then pay even more on top of that just to get the multiplayer experience (and then paying a bit more if it is a used game that requires a pass to activate the online stuff). Again, I can imagine how much money that brings in for Microsoft, but it still bothers me.

I really can't get into PC gaming all that much. I've played League of Legends and some games on my current PC, but I just can't see myself spending over a grand (or however much a good gaming PC costs) on a computer just to play video games. Then I have to worry about replacing parts after a few years and whatever other problems. I can understand why people prefer PC over console, but I'll always take a console or handheld over anything. Unless I win the lottery at least .

I won't be too heartbroken if we don't hear news regarding the next generation (outside the Wii-U) until next year. I don't buy games all too often as it is. This year there will be Borderlands 2 and possibly AC III. Even when the new systems come out, I definitely won't be buying them anywhere near the release date. I'd rather wait for a price drop and any bugs to be worked out, unless buying the system on release day gets you some sort of super awesome reward like some games offer on pre-orders.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Game developers need to be less influenced by movies and more by novels, books and other creative media. The truly interesting Playstation Store titles are pretty much paintings as a game (Journey, Flower, Echochrome, flOw....

Games like Skyrim, Fallout and Mass effect draw far far more from novels and works of sci fi writers than they do from film.

[RoyWill Rumble]

I think the only thing I would like for current gaming is the scope for open world games like GTA to feel completely authentic and like the city really does live and breathe. IV made great leaps along that line but there's still a lot more that can be done. However, I've no idea if IV pushed the systems to their limits or not and what games do push them to the limit. (Ooo yeahh, push it to the limit). I don't mean graphically, because I'm happy enough with how the current games look and whilst I do expect games to reflect real life with their graphics one day in my time here, I don't care about it insofar as actually playing my games.

Ellis was bang on about needing a cheaper way to develop games though. Too many company's are taking big hits from the recession so we're just going to get the same shit year-in-year-out with the occasional big idea that works out well. Too many gamers are happy to just buy this years/half years version of COD or Battlefield for developers to really worry about pushing boundaries though. But that's a different discussion.

Not gonna happen without a push forward in A.I. and scripting.

And my laptop right now--one that isn't a high-end computer is on par with a 360. I can run Skyrim on it and it looks better than it does on consoles. Yes, it was $800 bucks, but it's a laptop. This generation, to me, has become long in tooth. Middle-ranged PCs kill consoles now. They killed them a few years ago. Graphics can look insanely better. A lot fucking better. Console games still look great, but there's just so much more that technology is capable of. And it's not just about graphics, as I said, it's about advancing technology so we developers build more fully-realized worlds. That's what's most enticing to me. More responsive A.I. for sports games. So on, so forth. It isn't particularly hard to produce that on the relatively cheap--they're doing it on PCs now. Honestly, it'd be fucking insane, to me, to see something not come out by the end of 2013. Two years? Fine. Three? God, no. No. Games are being developed for the next-gen now. And I think gamers do deserve to know something. Of course they won't. They don't need to, because the vast majority don't want to. You guys have been a core sample to prove that. But I just--eh, rather have something concrete and definite to look forward to. Yes, these systems are expensive, but they always are. Every single generation, consoles are expensive. That's not going to go away.

I'm losing the argument, and I know that. But for me, it's just asinine to look into 2013 and think "Yep, probably no console announcements until next E3."

Edited May 19, 2012 by Will? Yum.

[Quom]

Honestly, though, what I really think is the reason for not having new consoles announced is that they don't want their launch titles to be tons of sequels to previous titles, coupled with new concepts for what amount to just FPS games with a different story. They need something else, something different - and the last truly different game that I can recall playing was Arkham City. Even then, Arkham City used a lot of the mechanics of Arkham Asylum, just on a bigger scale, with a more intricate plot, more villains, and more gadgets. On the other hand, every story has been told in some fashion or other, so maybe I just want different game mechanics. Like, less fighting and going bang, and more problem solving, or something.

Wait Arkham Asylum+GTA = original? Nah. Clearly the answer is Journey, or a number of other downloadable titles.

You said it in your intro - a flawed sense of entitlement is the only reason for this topic. If you want a better system, build a PC. Or hell, go buy an Alienware PC. What you really want is a mind-blowing experience with hardware that doesn't cost more than $1000. You're not acting entitled, you're acting cheap. Go to EBay, get the hardware and the tower, find a free "how-to-build" guide, and you tell me if you can get something that gives a better experience with a larger hard drive and better graphics, for $600 or less (heck, get a gaming controller while you do it). Or maybe you could just go and find a computer with specs better than a 360 or a PS3 that costs the same as one of those systems. You'll still be paying the same for the games on said PC as on a console (or more if you play MMOs). But hey, if you can do it, I'll believe that you've got a point. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke out of your ass, because you're saying that Sony and Microsoft need to do something that just might not be possible at the price points that they've established for console gaming systems.

Here you go, PC better than PS3 or X-Box for $598[ (chances are I could swap to an ivy bridge with on board graphics but am unsure if they are up to par, the video card is actually considered a 'step up' on consoles. I didn't get a pad, but you could afford one buy moving down to 750gb or by getting a cheaper CPU

I don't know if I could more strongly disagree with this. I also find it an amusing argument for keeping a console. This generation has blurred the line like never before between computer and console. The issue with PCs for gaming was that they weren't that social.

Sure they had online and LAN but you couldn't take a game to your friends pop it in and both play at the same time on the same screen. Now consoles are similar, parts of the games are locked onto the initial purchaser's console, most games have some form of install and patches that need to be downloaded. Plus quite a few games are forgoing or pushing to the back old school console multiplayer in favour of online.

I would argue that a PC is more functional, and actually less personal than a PS3 now. I mean I can go to a mates house, sign into steam and play my games at their house, whereas I think you are limited to the number of PS3s you can make accounts for. So eventually you can't even fully play the games you own.

Beyond which both connect to the TV by HDMI so can be played on modern televisions equally, difference being that PS3 and I think Xbox are only developed at 720P, whereas PC games go well beyond that, allowing for much crisper graphics to the point that a television doesn't have the necessary resolution to offer the best graphics possible (but still better than this gen).

The general point in all this is that I doubt I will ever own another console. I would much rather own a PC I can hook up to the television and a monitor so I can use it as a computer or in the same way as a console, easily play media, serve onto it from an NAS, and do about a million more things I can do on a console. I'm not sure I can any longer think of any positive differences for consoles over PCs. I mean even the games on release are cheaper on PC.

[Gongsun Zan]

I don't think developer innovation is limited by hardware as they are by consumer appeal. Most of the groundbreaking ideas I've seen are coming from indie to mid-level developers, while the bigger companies seem have to stagnated.

[SeanDMan]

Join us over on the right side, Will.

[apsham]

Honestly I think the thing that has hurt games the most is the whole "games can be on par with movies!" idea - because to me that just makes everything feel forced and you get stuff like ultra realism, scripted events and just... about everything else that could pull down a video game. I play a lot of games by indie and mid-range studios these days, and they can't afford to focus on this kind of stuff - their gameplay has to be absolutely amazing to pull in and keep the people.

[LittleDaniel]

I am all for new gaming systems to come out. Then I could probably afford to get either a 360 or a PS3.

Signed,

Someone who still uses a PS2

[Manifest]

I am all for new gaming systems to come out. Then I could probably afford to get either a 360 or a PS3.

Signed,

Someone who still uses a PS2

I only made the step up to current gen this year. Before that I was rocking the PS2. Quality system really (Y)

[EWB's Best Poster.]

It really is. LD you have an HD tv? If not the system wont shine as well

[BuddyAwesome]

I'm very content with the PS3 right now. The last thing I want is another generation of games coming out because I have a feeling the future is a whole lot more Move style games that I would really rather not fuck around with. I know it makes me seem like a lazy American, but when I'm playing a video game I kind of want to relax, kick back in bed, and play. And I could give a crap less about graphics, the games I've been playing most on my PS3 anyway are Mahjong Tales and Red Faction, anyway.

[Skummy]

Wii U looks magnificent, and I'll almost certainly buy it straight away - that said, it'll come into its own only when developers have got over the urge to exploit fancy new tech and the bonkers controller, and instead just get down to making quality games.

That said, I'm definitely not sick of the current gen - even though it's been around for longer than any other "generation" I can remember - but that's mostly because I'm not much of a gamer these days. I'm happy with the Wii, and an occassional play on the girlfriend's PS3.

Particularly, the Wii seems to have had a fantastic last push, with Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Skyward Sword and Xenoblade in particular being superb.