Are The Current Gen Consoles Power Overrated?

Hi guys....

This is a slight rant about the "lies" that developers, companies and media outlets keep on feeding to us. I was reading an article that stated we don't really need a next generation of consoles because of the super and extreme power of the current consoles, It's complete and utter rubbish IMO. One article even stated that "The consoles are so powerful there simply isn't any more powerful hardware out on the market." that comment really made me cringe....


Now I am not here to defend wether we need a new console generation or not (that's not the point of this thread) I'm just here to point out the vastly overrated assumption of the so called "power" of the current Gen consoles namely the PS3 and Xbox 360.


If these consoles are so "powerful" why aren't the majority of games if not all games 1920x1080 Native Resolution?

Why aren't all games 60 FPS

Why is Tekken 6 576p and Modern Warfare 2 600p? (Pathetic)

Why couldn't the consoles run Crysis back in 2007 with similar performance to PC (at the very least on medium settings)


The truth is our current Gen systems are pretty darn weak and I personally don't consider this HD gaming. To me this feels like sub HD gaming or Half Gen gaming.....

Maybe next generation (when everyone realizes how truly weak these consoles are) we can get down with some real HD 1080p Native Crysis Looking Games.

The hardware was designed 6/7 years ago. They were state of the art at that time, comparing it to the expnential growth of PC hardware is extrememly unfair.

The hardware was designed 6/7 years ago. They were state of the art at that time, comparing it to the expnential growth of PC hardware is extrememly unfair.

D1zzyCriminal

I think it more has to do with developers trying to catch up to consoles. It takes more time to advance a game to break console capacity.

The hardware was designed 6/7 years ago. They were state of the art at that time, comparing it to the expnential growth of PC hardware is extrememly unfair.

D1zzyCriminal

I see your point even though there were more powerful hardware available at the time. I'm not exactly comparing it to PC's It just bugs me when people trumpet about the power of these consoles they're aren't powerful folks like I said if they were powerful we'd of seen Uncharted 2 and GOW 3 in native 1080p resolution.

I don't think they are saying that the consoles are "powerful" so much as "powerful enough".

While consoles are not top of the line, they are capable of handling most of what developers need. Its like Valve and the Source engine. Yeah, its extremely outdated, but their games are just as fun, if not more fun, then most games using more advanced engines.

Any benefits of releasing a new generation of consoles now would be fairly minor and wouldn't justify buying a new system, especially considering Kinect and Move just came out.

And as someone else pointed out, this tech is several years old, comparing it to what modern top of the line computers can do is unfair.

I don't think they are saying that the consoles are "powerful" so much as "powerful enough".

Any benefits of releasing a new generation of consoles now would be fairly minor and wouldn't justify buying a new system, especially considering Kinect and Move just came out.

And as someone else pointed out, this tech is several years old, comparing it to what modern top of the line computers can do is unfair.

chaosflare44

It's not minor when IMO Modern day PC GPU's can produce this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RIzzxxckR4 (View At 1080p)

When fighting games like Tekken 6 are released at 576p to me there is a problem.

[QUOTE="D1zzyCriminal"]

The hardware was designed 6/7 years ago. They were state of the art at that time, comparing it to the expnential growth of PC hardware is extrememly unfair.

HellsAngel2c

The hardware was designed 6/7 years ago. They were state of the art at that time, comparing it to the expnential growth of PC hardware is extrememly unfair.

D1zzyCriminal

im not even going to talk about the pc...but when i play games on console...i have i have notice frame rate drops that slow the gameplay down, i think thats a sign that the ceiling of power that the consoles have...has been met and its either a programming problem or a hardware problem...so either developers need to take the extra 6 months or the consoles arent powerful enough for their own games. exp nfs shift ps3 vegas 2 360 swfu ps3 and metro 2033 ps3/360

Hi guys....

This is a slight rant about the "lies" that developers, companies and media outlets keep on feeding to us. I was reading an article that stated we don't really need a next generation of consoles because of the super and extreme power of the current consoles, It's complete and utter rubbish IMO. One article even stated that "The consoles are so powerful there simply isn't any more powerful hardware out on the market." that comment really made me cringe....


Now I am not here to defend wether we need a new console generation or not (that's not the point of this thread) I'm just here to point out the vastly overrated assumption of the so called "power" of the current Gen consoles namely the PS3 and Xbox 360.


If these consoles are so "powerful" why aren't the majority of games if not all games 1920x1080 Native Resolution?

Why aren't all games 60 FPS

Why is Tekken 6 576p and Modern Warfare 2 600p? (Pathetic)

Why couldn't the consoles run Crysis back in 2007 with similar performance to PC (at the very least on medium settings)


The truth is our current Gen systems are pretty darn weak and I personally don't consider this HD gaming. To me this feels like sub HD gaming or Half Gen gaming.....

Maybe next generation (when everyone realizes how truly weak these consoles are) we can get down with some real HD 1080p Native Crysis Looking Games.

BlackPoisonxX

[QUOTE="chaosflare44"]

I don't think they are saying that the consoles are "powerful" so much as "powerful enough".

Any benefits of releasing a new generation of consoles now would be fairly minor and wouldn't justify buying a new system, especially considering Kinect and Move just came out.

And as someone else pointed out, this tech is several years old, comparing it to what modern top of the line computers can do is unfair.

BlackPoisonxX

It's not minor when IMO Modern day PC GPU's can produce this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RIzzxxckR4 (View At 1080p)

When fighting games like Tekken 6 are released at 576p to me there is a problem.

Current gen console power was overrated at their launch (especially the PS3 which was a whole lot of hot air - Cell OMG!), anyone who says or thinks they're "powerful" now is deluded. Low framerates, low resolutions, no AA, no AF.

Gaming as a whole has been in a sort of a technological stagnation since 2007 (Crysis is still the benchmark). On the PC, developers have opted to take the Blizzard/Valve route and create games that can run on as many PC's as possible. On the console side, the manufacturers are happy to see this generation go longer than usual because sales are still low and prices are still high (relatively speaking). Developers are happy because a larger install base means a better chance of good sales. Gamers are happy because their consoles/PC's last longer.

So you have a situation in which there's barely any interest for a big leap forward on any side which, for the moment, is not a bad thing in and of itself.

Bad Company 2 is another pretty good looking game on the PC, and Killzone/GoW 3 doesn't even look that good to me, it's still the same old **** at only 720p and capped at 25fps The only reason Crysis is still the benchmark is because consoles suck, we're not going to get better than Crysis if we keep getting console ports. [QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][ So you're taking shots at five and six year old consoles because they don't run games as well as a 2010 PC? Fair enough. The fact Crysis is still the benchmark for PCs never fails to amuse me given how old the game is (2007 IIRC). As the developers of Crysis explained, PC piracy is so high that it simply doesn't make sense to make such games on PC only (which probably goes a long way towards explaining why PC fans have dragged out Crysis for years and will continue to do so for many more whenever they want to discuss how incredible the PC's visuals are). I'm not saying PC gaming isn't healthy (nods towards WoW, The Sims, Farmville, Starcraft 2 and the indie scene) but piracy and the changing dynamics of the market means that big budget single player games don't really make sense on the PC only (the benefits of maximizing PCs are not as great as the benefits of including consoles). Xayanex

So you honestly believe that all their talk of piracy and economics is just an excuse and there there is a global conspiracy against PC, a conspiracy so wide ranging it includes every game designer on the planet?

Fair enough.

So you honestly believe that all their talk of piracy and economics is just an excuse and there there is a global conspiracy against PC, a conspiracy so wide ranging it includes every game designer on the planet?

Fair enough.CarnageHeart

Excuse A - "We're going multiplatform because we want bigger sales and more money. We're simply greedy sons of b*****!" *sneer*

Excuse B - "We're going multiplatform because piracy is making us poor and destitute. We have to feed our families!" *sob*

Pick the one that is less likely to cause backlash.

I dare anyone who thinks Excuse B has any merit to name one PC developer that was not successful on PC and then went multiplatform.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]So you honestly believe that all their talk of piracy and economics is just an excuse and there there is a global conspiracy against PC, a conspiracy so wide ranging it includes every game designer on the planet?

Fair enough.UpInFlames

Excuse A - "We're going multiplatform because we want bigger sales and more money. We're simply greedy sons of b*****!" *sneer*

Excuse B - "We're going multiplatform because piracy is making us poor and destitute. We have to feed our families!" *sob*

Pick the one that is less likely to cause backlash.

I dare anyone who thinks Excuse B has any merit to name one PC developer that was not successful on PC and then went multiplatform.

Ending exclusivity always causes a backlash from fans of the platform that lost exclusivity, the reason given doesn't matter.

Crysis was the toast of the PC community and won tons of awards, but sales were sluggish. Did it make enough money for the developers to feed their families? Sure it did. Do guys considered some of the best designers in the most popular genre in the world aspire to do more than merely feed their families? Almost certainly.

When will people stop convincing themselves that their consoles have the same amount of power as a PC? Seriously quit it.GeneralShowzer

They can't even myself a console supporter and non PC gamer knows that....

hardware in general tends to get overrated. most developers focus on outer beauty instead of committing resources to physics engines, AI, and things that just generally make gaming worlds more engaging than polygon counts. LoG-Sacrament

When will people stop convincing themselves that their consoles have the same amount of power as a PC? Seriously quit it.GeneralShowzer

I think it more has to do with developers trying to catch up to consoles. It takes more time to advance a game to break console capacity.

outworld222

Ending exclusivity always causes a backlash from fans of the platform that lost exclusivity, the reason given doesn't matter.

Crysis was the toast of the PC community and won tons of awards, but sales were sluggish. Did it make enough money for the developers to feed their families? Sure it did. Do guys considered some of the best designers in the most popular genre in the world aspire to do more than merely feed their families? Almost certainly.CarnageHeart

You know very well that the backlash is minimized when Excuse B is used as most people are very sympathetic to developer piracy woes. You yourself have posted numerous times about "poor" Crytek. By the way, we have already established that those "sluggish" Crysis copies sold (almost 2 million--retail only in what is now largely a DD-driven market) are sluggish only in comparison to Call of Duty and Halo. And those that payed attention are also aware that Crysis' sales enabled Crytek to buy multiple development studios (Black Sea, Free Radical).

So yeah, it's a bunch of bull****. Every single PC developer that went multiplatform was already very successful on PC. Nobody did it out of desperation, but simply to find even greater success. It's not even possible to do it any other way as going multiplatform is very costly and the risk actually increases. Sure, you COULD make more money, but you have to SPEND a lot more money and there's absolutely no guarantee it'll pay off.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Ending exclusivity always causes a backlash from fans of the platform that lost exclusivity, the reason given doesn't matter.

Crysis was the toast of the PC community and won tons of awards, but sales were sluggish. Did it make enough money for the developers to feed their families? Sure it did. Do guys considered some of the best designers in the most popular genre in the world aspire to do more than merely feed their families? Almost certainly.UpInFlames

You know very well that the backlash is minimized when Excuse B is used as most people are very sympathetic to developer piracy woes. You yourself have posted numerous times about "poor" Crytek. By the way, we have already established that those "sluggish" Crysis copies sold (almost 2 million--retail only in what is now largely a DD-driven market) are sluggish only in comparison to Call of Duty and Halo. And those that payed attention are also aware that Crysis' sales enabled Crytek to buy multiple development studios (Black Sea, Free Radical).

So yeah, it's a bunch of bull****. Every single PC developer that went multiplatform was already very successful on PC. Nobody did it out of desperation, but simply to find even greater success. It's not even possible to do it any other way as going multiplatform is very costly and the risk actually increases. Sure, you COULD make more money, but you have to SPEND a lot more money and there's absolutely no guarantee it'll pay off.

:P You were the one who talked about developers claiming poverty. The PC market for easily pirated games like Crysis isn't large enough to make it sensible to make games like Crysis (do you think its an accident that in three years no one in the world has made a PC game which pushes hardware harder than Crysis despite the fact that in that span of time PC hardware has gotten exponentially more powerful?).

'Almost 2 million' is the type of number quality console shooters easily hit so I can see why a team considered one of the best of the industry didn't want to settle for such a number. Going where the business is isn't greed, its just good business sense.

Last and probably least, I'm unfamiliar with Black Sea, but after the disaster that was Haze, Free Radical was in horrible financial shape and no one wanted them, so buying them couldn't have cost much money .

First off, you have a RAM limitation on consoles. You can only compress software code so much. Think about it - the intro cinematic for the Witcher on the PC is too large to load into the 360 memory.

Second, the hardware is a modification of old PC hardware. The PS3 uses a modified 7800 GTX.

If you installed a 7800 GTX into a Vista or Windows 7 PC, you would lose Direct-X 10 & 11, CUDA, PureVideo, and Phys-X. GeForce 7-Series were all DX 9.0 or older.

And the 360 GPU is the R600 foundation of the Radeon HD 2000 series, pretty old technology.

Hardware always come out is over the power the programs need. This is true for game consoles as well. When a console first comes out most games at little to no better that the games that came on the first console and slowly the software getting better at using the full power until they leave how to get the most out of it.

:P You were the one who talked about developers claiming poverty. The PC market for easily pirated games like Crysis isn't large enough to make it sensible to make games like Crysis (do you think its an accident that in three years no one in the world has made a PC game which pushes hardware harder than Crysis despite the fact that in that span of time PC hardware has gotten exponentially more powerful?).

'Almost 2 million' is the type of number quality console shooters easily hit so I can see why a team considered one of the best of the industry didn't want to settle for such a number. Going where the business is isn't greed, its just good business sense.

Last and probably least, I'm unfamiliar with Black Sea, but after the disaster that was Haze, Free Radical was in horrible financial shape and no one wanted them, so buying them couldn't have cost much money.CarnageHeart

So just because Crysis didn't sell more, it must be piracy? I mean, it's not like Crysis was the most demanding game on the market that a lot of people simply couldn't run properly. It's simply not possible that some people didn't like the demo as much as they liked some other FPS (FYI, Crysis is not universally loved in the PC community as you seemingly think). It can't be because PC has the largest, most varied FPS library resulting in fierce competition and an extremely demanding audience. Nah, it's piracy.

You really think that no one is pushing PC hardware because of piracy? How did you make that correlation? Why do you think Blizzard didn't make Starcraft II a graphical powerhouse? Because they want most people to be able to run it. Besides, large technological leaps aren't really that common, it happens in cycles, just like on consoles. Especially now when multiplatforming is so common. How is a multiplatform developer going to push PC hardware when consoles are on a DirectX 9 level?

Even if Free Radical didn't cost much money, it's SPARE money Crytek had and they'll have to INVEST more in the studio and whatever game it's making. That's the entire point, they have money.

I can't wait to see how Crysis 2 does on consoles...because it ain't gonna do Call of Duty or Halo numbers, that's for sure.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]:P You were the one who talked about developers claiming poverty. The PC market for easily pirated games like Crysis isn't large enough to make it sensible to make games like Crysis (do you think its an accident that in three years no one in the world has made a PC game which pushes hardware harder than Crysis despite the fact that in that span of time PC hardware has gotten exponentially more powerful?).

'Almost 2 million' is the type of number quality console shooters easily hit so I can see why a team considered one of the best of the industry didn't want to settle for such a number. Going where the business is isn't greed, its just good business sense.

Last and probably least, I'm unfamiliar with Black Sea, but after the disaster that was Haze, Free Radical was in horrible financial shape and no one wanted them, so buying them couldn't have cost much money.UpInFlames

So just because Crysis didn't sell more, it must be piracy? I mean, it's not like Crysis was the most demanding game on the market that a lot of people simply couldn't run properly. It's simply not possible that some people didn't like the demo as much as they liked some other FPS (FYI, Crysis is not universally loved in the PC community as you seemingly think). It can't be because PC has the largest, most varied FPS library resulting in fierce competition and an extremely demanding audience. Nah, it's piracy.

You really think that no one is pushing PC hardware because of piracy? How did you make that correlation? Why do you think Blizzard didn't make Starcraft II a graphical powerhouse? Because they want most people to be able to run it. Besides, large technological leaps aren't really that common, it happens in cycles, just like on consoles. Especially now when multiplatforming is so common. How is a multiplatform developer going to push PC hardware when consoles are on a DirectX 9 level?

Even if Free Radical didn't cost much money, it's SPARE money Crytek had and they'll have to INVEST more in the studio and whatever game it's making. That's the entire point, they have money.

I can't wait to see how Crysis 2 does on consoles...because it ain't gonna do Call of Duty or Halo numbers, that's for sure.

Of course piracy isn't the only problem (as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the changing dynamics of the PC market are another big reason no PC developer has seen fit to follow in the footsteps of Crysis) but while all pirates aren't customers, some of them would have been, and the fact that Crysis 2 was on pirate servers even before release and wasapopular downloadsurely did its sales no favors.

I agree Crysis 2 isn't going to do CoD numbers, but Battlefield numbers are within reach (6 million sales for Bad Company 2, though of course there is no per-platform breakdown).

http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=163678

I agree Crysis 2 isn't going to do CoD numbers, but Battlefield numbers are within reach (6 million sales for Bad Company 2, though of course there is no per-platform breakdown).

http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=163678

CarnageHeart

I doubt it. Battlefield is huge and has a long legacy on PC and it's even an established franchise on consoles. Crysis is neither. We'll see.

[QUOTE="BlackPoisonxX"]

[QUOTE="chaosflare44"]

I don't think they are saying that the consoles are "powerful" so much as "powerful enough".

Any benefits of releasing a new generation of consoles now would be fairly minor and wouldn't justify buying a new system, especially considering Kinect and Move just came out.

And as someone else pointed out, this tech is several years old, comparing it to what modern top of the line computers can do is unfair.

chaosflare44

It's not minor when IMO Modern day PC GPU's can produce this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RIzzxxckR4 (View At 1080p)

When fighting games like Tekken 6 are released at 576p to me there is a problem.

Crysis looks much better. Console games have low resolution textures and the lighting is nowhere near as good as that shown in the Crysis video. Not to mention PC games are rendered at the resolution you set, so they look a lot sharper with no blurriness.

Whether or not it's often that games of Crysis' graphical flare come out makes no difference to the discussion since we're talking about hardware capabilities.

First off, you have a RAM limitation on consoles. You can only compress software code so much. Think about it - the intro cinematic for the Witcher on the PC is too large to load into the 360 memory.

Second, the hardware is a modification of old PC hardware. The PS3 uses a modified 7800 GTX.

If you installed a 7800 GTX into a Vista or Windows 7 PC, you would lose Direct-X 10 & 11, CUDA, PureVideo, and Phys-X. GeForce 7-Series were all DX 9.0 or older.

And the 360 GPU is the R600 foundation of the Radeon HD 2000 series, pretty old technology.

topsemag55

As soon as a console launches, the tech inside is dated. That's simply the nature of the medium.

And really, who cares?

What matters is the kind of performance the developers can squeeze out of the games they make and this generation, they have kept most of their promises.

Also, PC-gamers need to relax. We all know and understand that a PC is and will always be capable of more than a console but the truth is that not all of us care. God of War III might run at paltry 30fps and run in a meager 720p output but on my 52' Bravia, it looks quite brilliant.

This generation has seen some astounding games from a technical standpoint so I'm actually quite satisfied with what has been delivered. I could spend my time counting pixels or worrying that my image is up-scaled rather than true HD but such endeavors might impede that little thing called having a life.

Is seems to me, that PC gamers are obsessed about frame rates , antialiasing etc. Instead of playing games. (HD film frame rates vary between 30fps and 24/25 fps) It's a balance I guess! A high end gaming PC costs loads of bucks! With enhanced cooling and large power requirements! So a higher cost to run a game. An Xbox 360 or PS3 console costs way less. The games for the PC are cheaper, the games for the consoles dearer. The thing about consoles, is the spec is fixed!

Just my point of view.

Thats exactly why PC gaming dominates in every aspect.face_ripper

It's really a shame that people like you must continue to perpetuate such puerile attitudes rather than acknowledge that both PC and console gaming play different but equally important roles within this medium.

You claim that the PC "dominates in every aspect" but how is that even possible? Once you remove the inherent technical superiority of the PC, what exactly is so dominate about the platform? Mods? (Which are an awesome addition)

What if I love the fighting genre, then what? How is the PC "dominate in every aspect" when I cannot play Tekken, Soul Caliber, BlazeBlue, or Super Street Fighter IV?

What if I want to play Mario Galaxy 2, one of the best-reviewed games of the year? Or how about God of War III?

Can I currently play Read Dead Redemption on the PC? (had it even been announced for the PC?)

And what if I don't want to play games with a mouse and keyboard, then what? I guess I can plug in an XB360 pad, but by using that insanely well-designed controller, that in and of itself is a concession that the PC doesn't dominate everything.

The PC may very well dominate the technical side of this medium but the rest of it is most certainly up for considerable debate. Personally, rather than petty squabbling, I opt for mutual respect but unfortunately people like you can't seem to abide that and rather continue to foist hyperbolic and unfounded notions unto the rest of us.

Hi guys....

This is a slight rant about the "lies" that developers, companies and media outlets keep on feeding to us. I was reading an article that stated we don't really need a next generation of consoles because of the super and extreme power of the current consoles, It's complete and utter rubbish IMO. One article even stated that "The consoles are so powerful there simply isn't any more powerful hardware out on the market." that comment really made me cringe....


Now I am not here to defend wether we need a new console generation or not (that's not the point of this thread) I'm just here to point out the vastly overrated assumption of the so called "power" of the current Gen consoles namely the PS3 and Xbox 360.


If these consoles are so "powerful" why aren't the majority of games if not all games 1920x1080 Native Resolution?

Why aren't all games 60 FPS

Why is Tekken 6 576p and Modern Warfare 2 600p? (Pathetic)

Why couldn't the consoles run Crysis back in 2007 with similar performance to PC (at the very least on medium settings)


The truth is our current Gen systems are pretty darn weak and I personally don't consider this HD gaming. To me this feels like sub HD gaming or Half Gen gaming.....

Maybe next generation (when everyone realizes how truly weak these consoles are) we can get down with some real HD 1080p Native Crysis Looking Games.

BlackPoisonxX

i cant believe anyone who would play games like God Of War 3, KZ3, and Uncharted 2 and says these consoles are 'pretty darn weak'. i am sorry but thats pretty darn idiotic. i didnt play those games thinking 'oh why are they not running at 60 fps or how comes the resolution isnt 1920x1080, this is pathetic'.

The truth is given enough time, all games can look as good as the three games i mentioned above which tells me that the consoles aren't weak,..... compared to current gen PC hardware, yes they are, but why compare them when a game like Gears of War 2 has an absolutely massive scale, incredible looking character models and textures?

Sure they are some games that run below 720. the COD games look pretty terrible at times and thats a choice the developer made to make sure the game runs at 60fps consistently. I've played shooters that run and play vVERY smoothly at 30 fps so I am not sure why IW and Tryearch wont bring it down to 30 fps, but it's their choice. Those games could easily run at 720p. Games like Castlevania that run at 24 fps max do not represent the power of these consoles, just like how every game released on PCs are not used as benchmarks for the PC. Crysis is used as the benchmark because its the best looking game on PC, similarly, you should use GoW3, Gears 2, Uncharted 2, KZ3 as benchmarks instead of complaining about MW2 look like s****.

Besides, if you look at sub HD games like Halo Reach and MGS4.... both look stunning at times even though they're running at sub HD. Stop trying to look at "numbers", or counting pixels and actually play these games and i bet you wont be able to notice that they aren't HD.

P.S Now it's disappointing to see a game like AC Brotherhood that looks gorgeous at times running at a pretty terrible framerate, or GT5's tearing issues, but both games would look and run better if certain comprimises had been made. GT5 didn't need to have 16 100K cars running on the screen at once at 1080p to be more enjoyable, and AC2 certainly didn't need to have razor sharp textures and hundreds of NPCs on screen at once.