I know because of the economy and the fact that recent pc titles look only marginally better than those on 5-year-old consoles, it may be a while before we see new consoles. Supposedly Kinect and Move are MS and Sony's "next-gen" releases, but they're really just gimmicky add-ons trying to copy the Wii's success. And even now we've heard next-to-nothing about any new consoles in development. How soon do you think we'll see new consoles? 2012? 2015? I'm betting that a new console won't be released until 2015, although we may start hearing about them sooner than that.
When will we see a new generation of consoles?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
It'd take a few years.
I know because of the economy and the fact that recent pc titles look only marginally better than those on 5-year-old consoles, it may be a while before we see new consoles. Supposedly Kinect and Move are MS and Sony's "next-gen" releases, but they're really just gimmicky add-ons trying to copy the Wii's success. And even now we've heard next-to-nothing about any new consoles in development. How soon do you think we'll see new consoles? 2012? 2015? I'm betting that a new console won't be released until 2015, although we may start hearing about them sooner than that.
UT_Wrestler
PC games looks A LOT better:
AF
AA
Much Higher resolutions
DX10 and DX11
Consoles look like **** compared to PCs.
Compare PC EXCLUSIVES to consoles and you will see.
New console I'd say 2012. 2015 WAY to far away. Consoles compared to PC would like a NES compared to a PS3 by then.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]
I know because of the economy and the fact that recent pc titles look only marginally better than those on 5-year-old consoles, it may be a while before we see new consoles. Supposedly Kinect and Move are MS and Sony's "next-gen" releases, but they're really just gimmicky add-ons trying to copy the Wii's success. And even now we've heard next-to-nothing about any new consoles in development. How soon do you think we'll see new consoles? 2012? 2015? I'm betting that a new console won't be released until 2015, although we may start hearing about them sooner than that.
PC games looks A LOT better:
AF
AA
Much Higher resolutions
DX10 and DX11
Consoles look like **** compared to PCs.
Compare PC EXCLUSIVES to consoles and you will see.
New console I'd say 2012. 2015 WAY to far away. Consoles compared to PC would like a NES compared to a PS3 by then.
You can talk all day about resolutions and numbers, but what matters is what you actually see in front of you. They look only marginally better than games like Uncharted 2, so it's a pretty good gauge of what console games would look like if on a new console if one came out today. Most people wouldn't understand the point of buying a new console when there's hardly a noticeable difference in graphics.PC games looks A LOT better:
AF
AA
Much Higher resolutions
DX10 and DX11
Consoles look like **** compared to PCs.
Compare PC EXCLUSIVES to consoles and you will see.
New console I'd say 2012. 2015 WAY to far away. Consoles compared to PC would like a NES compared to a PS3 by then.
morrowindnic
PC's will always remain technologically superior, that's a given, but your comments are ridiculously hyperbolic to the point of being system wars fodder.
While I don't necessarily agree that the difference between PC and console gaming is "small" in terms of graphical output, it's not nearly as disparate as you claim either. The graphical output of the HD systems doesn't look like **** compared to anything, including your precious PC. Games like God of War III, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and the upcoming Vanquish look insanely good regardless of platform and regardless of resolutions and AA.
UT's initial point was that the gulf that used to separate PC games from console games is not nearly as pronounced as it once was, even if PC's still offer overall better visual capabilities. I understand that some of you PC gamers really cling to your precious hardware specs but seriously, it's not a slander to state that consoles are striving to meet the graphical precedents set by the PC market. PC's always have and continue to pave the way for graphical advancement but the days of leaving consoles completely in the proverbial dust are over.
They are gonna come when this gen consoles become obsolete/outdated compared to PC, i mean like PS1 compared to PS2.
PCs have always held a graphics advantage over consoles, and ultimately it's never mattered.DarkCatalyst
not only graphical advantage sir .
it has better controlls ,
better gameplay (mods , dedicated servers , unlimited patches , free dlc's etc. )
games are like 5 times cheaper
PC has like 100 times more games
PC has exclusive game genres ( mmorpgs , rts , tbs etc. )
PC has better community in overal
Plenty more advantages ...
PC gaming is just superior to console gaming in every aspect !
I am thinking that new consoles will be coming out sometime around 2013. Who knows really.
[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]PCs have always held a graphics advantage over consoles, and ultimately it's never mattered.Farkeman
not only graphical advantage sir .
it has better controlls ,
better gameplay (mods , dedicated servers , unlimited patches , free dlc's etc. )
games are like 5 times cheaper
PC has like 100 times more games
PC has exclusive game genres ( mmorpgs , rts , tbs etc. )
PC has better community in overal
Plenty more advantages ...
PC gaming is just superior to console gaming in every aspect !
I'll reject that assessment, but stay with you on the graphics.
So we're probably looking at 10 year life cycles for consoles now rather than the traditional 5.Microsoft say a new Xbox will be out around 2015, so then i suppose...
Dire-wolf
[QUOTE="Dire-wolf"]So we're probably looking at 10 year life cycles for consoles now rather than the traditional 5. About damn time.Microsoft say a new Xbox will be out around 2015, so then i suppose...
UT_Wrestler
PC Forever!!
Farkeman
Things must be slow in system wars.
Anyway, I expect we'll see a new Nintendo console in 2012. Software and hardware-wise the Wii is really slowing down (its falling much faster than the DS, which Nintendo is replacing next year).
Unless the Nintendo system flops (insanely unlikely, considering the deep understanding Nintendo has of casuals) Sony and MS will give it no more than a year's lead.
I expect their talk of extended lifespans for the PS3 and X360 will translate into keeping the systems in production after the successors hit the shelves, letting whatever games are in the pipeline finish development on the system they were developed for and letting third parties continue to support their old systems (in other words, what Sony did with the PS2).
I would like this generation to continue for at least another couple years. So many good games this gen.
I know because of the economy and the fact that recent pc titles look only marginally better than those on 5-year-old consoles, it may be a while before we see new consoles. Supposedly Kinect and Move are MS and Sony's "next-gen" releases, but they're really just gimmicky add-ons trying to copy the Wii's success. And even now we've heard next-to-nothing about any new consoles in development. How soon do you think we'll see new consoles? 2012? 2015? I'm betting that a new console won't be released until 2015, although we may start hearing about them sooner than that.
UT_Wrestler
Just like you said, PC games don't look very much better than their console cousins at all. And the economy is a huge factor in game companies not rushing out new consoles -- they know it'd be extrmemely dangerous to do so in this economic climate. At least 3 or 4 more years before a new console from Sony or Microsoft.
[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]
PC games looks A LOT better:
AF
AA
Much Higher resolutions
DX10 and DX11
Consoles look like **** compared to PCs.
Compare PC EXCLUSIVES to consoles and you will see.
New console I'd say 2012. 2015 WAY to far away. Consoles compared to PC would like a NES compared to a PS3 by then.
Grammaton-Cleric
PC's will always remain technologically superior, that's a given, but your comments are ridiculously hyperbolic to the point of being system wars fodder.
While I don't necessarily agree that the difference between PC and console gaming is "small" in terms of graphical output, it's not nearly as disparate as you claim either. The graphical output of the HD systems doesn't look like **** compared to anything, including your precious PC. Games like God of War III, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and the upcoming Vanquish look insanely good regardless of platform and regardless of resolutions and AA.
UT's initial point was that the gulf that used to separate PC games from console games is not nearly as pronounced as it once was, even if PC's still offer overall better visual capabilities. I understand that some of you PC gamers really cling to your precious hardware specs but seriously, it's not a slander to state that consoles are striving to meet the graphical precedents set by the PC market. PC's always have and continue to pave the way for graphical advancement but the days of leaving consoles completely in the proverbial dust are over.
Consoles sacrificed AA and AF for "pretty graphics".
Technicly speaking, compared to a PC they are quite bad. Jaggies everywhere,30fps, blurry textures at a slight distance.
And If the next consoles come out in 2015, they diffrence is just going to get a hell of a lot bigger. Hell this years cards are A LOT better then last years. And thats in just a year. Imagine four or five.
Upgrading hardware for the next consoles will generate even more heat, so it may take some time before they can come up with better heatloss technology.
Consoles sacrificed AA and AF for "pretty graphics".
Technicly speaking, compared to a PC they are quite bad. Jaggies everywhere,30fps, blurry textures at a slight distance.
And If the next consoles come out in 2015, they diffrence is just going to get a hell of a lot bigger. Hell this years cards are A LOT better then last years. And thats in just a year. Imagine four or five.
morrowindnic
The AA issue with console gaming really isn't the glaring problem you suggest. "Jaggies" aren't everywhere, that's for certain. .
Frame rate is something that PC-fanboys often cite but in reality not every game necessarily needs or even benefits from a higher frame rate. Film is 24 fps and that looks just fine so honestly, while it might placate the tech-heads to achieve higher frame rates, what I look for is smooth animation and responsive game play, which can be delivered via 30 fps. Also keep in mind that plenty of console games run at 60fps, specifically most fighters and some shooters like MW2, etc.
As to the blurry textures, I really have no idea what you are referring to. I game on a 52' Sony Bravia and most games are far from blurry; as a point of fact, most games look crisp and sharp in HD.
Again, I'm not asserting that PC games can't or don't look better. However, the gulf that separates the two graphically is not nearly as wide as you would like us to believe.
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]
[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]
PC games looks A LOT better:
AF
AA
Much Higher resolutions
DX10 and DX11
Consoles look like **** compared to PCs.
Compare PC EXCLUSIVES to consoles and you will see.
New console I'd say 2012. 2015 WAY to far away. Consoles compared to PC would like a NES compared to a PS3 by then.
morrowindnic
PC's will always remain technologically superior, that's a given, but your comments are ridiculously hyperbolic to the point of being system wars fodder.
While I don't necessarily agree that the difference between PC and console gaming is "small" in terms of graphical output, it's not nearly as disparate as you claim either. The graphical output of the HD systems doesn't look like **** compared to anything, including your precious PC. Games like God of War III, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and the upcoming Vanquish look insanely good regardless of platform and regardless of resolutions and AA.
UT's initial point was that the gulf that used to separate PC games from console games is not nearly as pronounced as it once was, even if PC's still offer overall better visual capabilities. I understand that some of you PC gamers really cling to your precious hardware specs but seriously, it's not a slander to state that consoles are striving to meet the graphical precedents set by the PC market. PC's always have and continue to pave the way for graphical advancement but the days of leaving consoles completely in the proverbial dust are over.
Consoles sacrificed AA and AF for "pretty graphics".
Technicly speaking, compared to a PC they are quite bad. Jaggies everywhere,30fps, blurry textures at a slight distance.
And If the next consoles come out in 2015, they diffrence is just going to get a hell of a lot bigger. Hell this years cards are A LOT better then last years. And thats in just a year. Imagine four or five.
The fact you are talking about graphics cards and not games is telling. Given Moore's law, at this point in time, PCs are vastly more powerful than consoles, but given PC sales vs consoles sales, unless one is making a strategy game or a MMO, it makes more financial sense for a developer to focus on consoles than it does for it to make a really expensive PC game.
Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.
In fairness, economics has also hurt the technical quality of most PS3 and X360 games. Fewer sales than the PS2 and much bigger budgets has translated into much more middleware use than in prior generations.
[QUOTE="Dire-wolf"]So we're probably looking at 10 year life cycles for consoles now rather than the traditional 5. Hopefully. I mean a new gen of consoles would be great, but I've always wished the life span of each gen was longer.Microsoft say a new Xbox will be out around 2015, so then i suppose...
UT_Wrestler
Microsoft say a new Xbox will be out around 2015, so then i suppose...
So we're probably looking at 10 year life cycles for consoles now rather than the traditional 5. Hopefully. I mean a new gen of consoles would be great, but I've always wished the life span of each gen was longer. Indeed, less money to spend on hardware, a bigger leap in technology when a console does arrive. We've already made the transition from 2D to 3D, and then 3D to HD, so what's even left? HD to slightly prettier HD?
Consoles sacrificed AA and AF for "pretty graphics".Technicly speaking, compared to a PC they are quite bad. Jaggies everywhere,30fps, blurry textures at a slight distance.
And If the next consoles come out in 2015, they diffrence is just going to get a hell of a lot bigger. Hell this years cards are A LOT better then last years. And thats in just a year. Imagine four or five.morrowindnic
Yeah, but multiplatforming is pretty much not allowing for any huge advancements. Most games are still developed in DirectX 9 and a 3-year-old DirectX 9 game is still the best-looking game on the market. No one has raised the bar since Crysis.
As to the blurry textures, I really have no idea what you are referring to. I game on a 52' Sony Bravia and most games are far from blurry; as a point of fact, most games look crisp and sharp in HD.Grammaton-Cleric
That's because you don't play PC games. :P
The only way to really notice a difference is to play both versions. I mean, Red Dead Redemption looks awesome to me on the 360, but I wonder if I would feel the same if there was a PC version. Because the difference in Grand Theft Auto IV and recently Mafia II is not negligible - lack of AA, AF and blurry, low-res textures really hurt the eyes after witnessing the PC version. I've seen people complain about Mafia II on PS3...I don't know what those people would say if the saw the game on PC.
Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.CarnageHeart
If Crytek believed that Crysis would somehow sell as much as Call of Duty or Halo, then I guess 1.5 million (probably a lot more by now thanks to Steam) in sales was disappointing to them. But if they think Crysis 2 is going to achieve anywhere near the numbers of Halo Reach or Black Ops - then they're in for yet another rude awakening. The hype among console gamers seems pretty low to me and this time they shouldn't count on a terribly big PC support because the impression right now is that the game is dumbed down for consoles. In my personal opinion, even Warhead (which was PC only) was a step in the wrong direction.
[QUOTE="Farkeman"]
[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]PCs have always held a graphics advantage over consoles, and ultimately it's never mattered.DarkCatalyst
not only graphical advantage sir .
it has better controlls ,
better gameplay (mods , dedicated servers , unlimited patches , free dlc's etc. )
games are like 5 times cheaper
PC has like 100 times more games
PC has exclusive game genres ( mmorpgs , rts , tbs etc. )
PC has better community in overal
Plenty more advantages ...
PC gaming is just superior to console gaming in every aspect !
I'll reject that assessment, but stay with you on the graphics. He exaggerated the numbers a little, but in the end, he's correct.[QUOTE="Farkeman"]
[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]PCs have always held a graphics advantage over consoles, and ultimately it's never mattered.DarkCatalyst
not only graphical advantage sir .
it has better controlls ,
better gameplay (mods , dedicated servers , unlimited patches , free dlc's etc. )
games are like 5 times cheaper
PC has like 100 times more games
PC has exclusive game genres ( mmorpgs , rts , tbs etc. )
PC has better community in overal
Plenty more advantages ...
PC gaming is just superior to console gaming in every aspect !
I'll reject that assessment, but stay with you on the graphics.Half of those things you said are opinions, and mods are a flaw IMO, sure its cool in sp games or when your playing with your friends, but when your trying to actually win, and some guy is modding, it sucks. Also, mmorpgs, rts, AND tbs, are not exclusives as they have all been on consoles.
[QUOTE="travisstaggs"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] So we're probably looking at 10 year life cycles for consoles now rather than the traditional 5.UT_WrestlerHopefully. I mean a new gen of consoles would be great, but I've always wished the life span of each gen was longer. Indeed, less money to spend on hardware, a bigger leap in technology when a console does arrive. We've already made the transition from 2D to 3D, and then 3D to HD, so what's even left? HD to slightly prettier HD?
Well 3D, i mean real 3D like 3D movie with those red blue glasses 3D.
I think wee are going to get some super sophisticated 3D that doesnt need glasses and is photo realistic... mmm... HD-3D yea, that would be cool.
That's because you don't play PC games. :P
The only way to really notice a difference is to play both versions. I mean, Red Dead Redemption looks awesome to me on the 360, but I wonder if I would feel the same if there was a PC version. Because the difference in Grand Theft Auto IV and recently Mafia II is not negligible - lack of AA, AF and blurry, low-res textures really hurt the eyes after witnessing the PC version. I've seen people complain about Mafia II on PS3...I don't know what those people would say if the saw the game on PC.
UpInFlames
Well of course the game will look better in a side-by-side comparison. No doubt the difference would be substantial, especially if you are running a decent rig and graphics card.
However, my point is and remains that his generalizations about blurry textures and jaggies galore is hyperbole. Most of the HD games look fantastic and the fact that they would look better on a PC is incidental. The PC can be eternally modified with the best graphic and processing tech but at the same time we've reached a point with graphics that the field is much more level in terms of what all platforms (save the Wii) can do.
A game like Batman: AA may look better on a PC with the appropriate graphical capabilities but that does nothing to negate how amazing the game looks on the XB360/PS3. Both games are operating in the general vicinity of one another, even if the PC version is clearly superior in terms of visuals and processing. The gulf that separated PC and console gaming is not nearly as wide as it once was, due largely in part to the consoles finally displaying games in HD, something that PC games have essentially been doing for years prior.
And again, none of this should offend the PC-enthusiast because PC's continue to lead the charge of graphical fidelity. Realistically, they always will.
[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]
[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]
PC's will always remain technologically superior, that's a given, but your comments are ridiculously hyperbolic to the point of being system wars fodder.
While I don't necessarily agree that the difference between PC and console gaming is "small" in terms of graphical output, it's not nearly as disparate as you claim either. The graphical output of the HD systems doesn't look like **** compared to anything, including your precious PC. Games like God of War III, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and the upcoming Vanquish look insanely good regardless of platform and regardless of resolutions and AA.
UT's initial point was that the gulf that used to separate PC games from console games is not nearly as pronounced as it once was, even if PC's still offer overall better visual capabilities. I understand that some of you PC gamers really cling to your precious hardware specs but seriously, it's not a slander to state that consoles are striving to meet the graphical precedents set by the PC market. PC's always have and continue to pave the way for graphical advancement but the days of leaving consoles completely in the proverbial dust are over.
CarnageHeart
Consoles sacrificed AA and AF for "pretty graphics".
Technicly speaking, compared to a PC they are quite bad. Jaggies everywhere,30fps, blurry textures at a slight distance.
And If the next consoles come out in 2015, they diffrence is just going to get a hell of a lot bigger. Hell this years cards are A LOT better then last years. And thats in just a year. Imagine four or five.
The fact you are talking about graphics cards and not games is telling. Given Moore's law, at this point in time, PCs are vastly more powerful than consoles, but given PC sales vs consoles sales, unless one is making a strategy game or a MMO, it makes more financial sense for a developer to focus on consoles than it does for it to make a really expensive PC game.
Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.
In fairness, economics has also hurt the technical quality of most PS3 and X360 games. Fewer sales than the PS2 and much bigger budgets has translated into much more middleware use than in prior generations.
Crysis 2 is going to look a lot better on PC then consoles.
I highly doubt PCs will be able to max it out, the day its released, with 60fps.
There are many features the PC version will have, the console won't.
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.UpInFlames
If Crytek believed that Crysis would somehow sell as much as Call of Duty or Halo, then I guess 1.5 million (probably a lot more by now thanks to Steam) in sales was disappointing to them. But if they think Crysis 2 is going to achieve anywhere near the numbers of Halo Reach or Black Ops - then they're in for yet another rude awakening. The hype among console gamers seems pretty low to me and this time they shouldn't count on a terribly big PC support because the impression right now is that the game is dumbed down for consoles. In my personal opinion, even Warhead (which was PC only) was a step in the wrong direction.
There's a vast gap between putting up Halo numbers and selling much better than the original Crysis did. Considering Crysis is six months out, a lack of 'hype' isn't surprising at this stage.
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.CarnageHeart
If Crytek believed that Crysis would somehow sell as much as Call of Duty or Halo, then I guess 1.5 million (probably a lot more by now thanks to Steam) in sales was disappointing to them. But if they think Crysis 2 is going to achieve anywhere near the numbers of Halo Reach or Black Ops - then they're in for yet another rude awakening. The hype among console gamers seems pretty low to me and this time they shouldn't count on a terribly big PC support because the impression right now is that the game is dumbed down for consoles. In my personal opinion, even Warhead (which was PC only) was a step in the wrong direction.
There's a vast gap between putting up Halo numbers and selling much better than the original Crysis did. Considering Crysis is six months out, a lack of 'hype' isn't surprising at this stage.
Considering Halo is a mainstream, everyone must buy type of game. It shouldn't be surprising that it sells more then a PC game that gets nearly no adverstising.
PC games can sell millions just like console games.
[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]I'll reject that assessment, but stay with you on the graphics. He exaggerated the numbers a little, but in the end, he's correct. No, because however you might correct his statements to make them more accurate, it's all irrelevant in the end to someone that PC gaming does nothing for. It's a simple case of apples and oranges.[QUOTE="Farkeman"]
not only graphical advantage sir .
it has better controlls ,
better gameplay (mods , dedicated servers , unlimited patches , free dlc's etc. )
games are like 5 times cheaper
PC has like 100 times more games
PC has exclusive game genres ( mmorpgs , rts , tbs etc. )
PC has better community in overal
Plenty more advantages ...PC gaming is just superior to console gaming in every aspect !
UltraJacob1
Story time. I bought a gaming PC earlier this year, my first since 2004 (when I actually did still have some love for FPS). It's true that I have a nice library of games on Steam (though many - certainly not all, but many - of which are console games that I either didn't want to buy at full price or wanted another version of), I still do the vast majority of my gaming on my PS3, 360, and Japanese PS2, because the PC doesn't have nearly as much to offer in the genres that compel me to game in the first place - fighters, arcade racers, and JRPGs.
Just for reference, the games I have favorited on Steam: Lumines, OutRun2006: Coast 2 Coast (admittedly the best version next to the Xbox), Sega Rally Revo, ToCA Race Driver 3 (not even a blip on my radar until I got it on the cheap from Steam), and Trackmania United Forever (the only game I've ever had any desire to mod, but admit to lacking the know-how to pull off the total conversion I'm envisioning).
In other words, PC gaming can offer up all the technical superiority it wants, no technical superiority matters as long as PC gaming still can't offer me the likes of Virtua Fighter, Shin Megami Tensei, or Ridge Racer. That's not a knock on the PC, just a testament to the irrelevance of the PC vs Console debate.
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Crysis is beloved by PC fans on the internet, but Crytek noted the fact that it was handily outsold by many console shooters. So years later, rather than make a game which maxed out the latest crop of PC graphics cards, they decided they wanted to make money instead by also releasing their game on consoles.CarnageHeart
If Crytek believed that Crysis would somehow sell as much as Call of Duty or Halo, then I guess 1.5 million (probably a lot more by now thanks to Steam) in sales was disappointing to them. But if they think Crysis 2 is going to achieve anywhere near the numbers of Halo Reach or Black Ops - then they're in for yet another rude awakening. The hype among console gamers seems pretty low to me and this time they shouldn't count on a terribly big PC support because the impression right now is that the game is dumbed down for consoles. In my personal opinion, even Warhead (which was PC only) was a step in the wrong direction.
There's a vast gap between putting up Halo numbers and selling much better than the original Crysis did. Considering Crysis is six months out, a lack of 'hype' isn't surprising at this stage.
What other console FPSs handily outsold Crysis?
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]
If Crytek believed that Crysis would somehow sell as much as Call of Duty or Halo, then I guess 1.5 million (probably a lot more by now thanks to Steam) in sales was disappointing to them. But if they think Crysis 2 is going to achieve anywhere near the numbers of Halo Reach or Black Ops - then they're in for yet another rude awakening. The hype among console gamers seems pretty low to me and this time they shouldn't count on a terribly big PC support because the impression right now is that the game is dumbed down for consoles. In my personal opinion, even Warhead (which was PC only) was a step in the wrong direction.
UpInFlames
There's a vast gap between putting up Halo numbers and selling much better than the original Crysis did. Considering Crysis is six months out, a lack of 'hype' isn't surprising at this stage.
What other console FPSs handily outsold Crysis?
*Shrugs* I was going to name Battlefield Bad Company 2, Borderlands and Bioshock (all of which sold at least twice what Crysis did) but all of those games have PC incarnations, which kind of muddies the water a bit given that publishers rarely breakdown sales by platform.Microsoft said it will bring its new consle once sony does so im guessing 2016.johny300
2016? well i guess my next PC build will have to be so good that it can last at least 6 years + untill i make a new build then
[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
There's a vast gap between putting up Halo numbers and selling much better than the original Crysis did. Considering Crysis is six months out, a lack of 'hype' isn't surprising at this stage.
CarnageHeart
What other console FPSs handily outsold Crysis?
*Shrugs* I was going to name Battlefield Bad Company 2, Borderlands and Bioshock (all of which sold at least twice what Crysis did) but all of those games have PC incarnations, which kind of muddies the water a bit given that publishers rarely breakdown sales by platform.So none then.
By the way, DICE has stated that the PC version of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 outsold both the 360 and PS3 versions. Furthermore, many other PC FPSs outsold Crysis - most notably Half-Life (9.3 milllion*), Half-Life 2 (6.5 million*), Counter-Strike (4.2 million*), Doom (5 million), Doom 3 (3.5 million), Battlefield 2 (3.5 million) and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl (2 million).
Which leads me to my point - anyone who thinks success is guranteed on one platform and failure on another is horribly mistaken.
*Note that those are retail numbers only so those are rather conservative considering they're Valve games - especially for Counter-Strike which is still one of the most popular online FPSs of all time. And if I were a betting man, I'd also wager Team Fortress 2 sold several million copies considering its immense popularity 3 years post-release.
*Shrugs* I was going to name Battlefield Bad Company 2, Borderlands and Bioshock (all of which sold at least twice what Crysis did) but all of those games have PC incarnations, which kind of muddies the water a bit given that publishers rarely breakdown sales by platform.[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]
What other console FPSs handily outsold Crysis?
UpInFlames
So none then.
By the way, DICE has stated that the PC version of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 outsold both the 360 and PS3 versions. Furthermore, many other PC FPSs outsold Crysis - most notably Half-Life (9.3 milllion*), Half-Life 2 (6.5 million*), Counter-Strike (4.2 million*), Doom (5 million), Doom 3 (3.5 million), Battlefield 2 (3.5 million) and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl (2 million).
Which leads me to my point - anyone who thinks success is guranteed on one platform and failure on another is horribly mistaken.
*Note that those are retail numbers only so those are rather conservative considering they're Valve games - especially for Counter-Strike which is still one of the most popular online FPSs of all time. And if I were a betting man, I'd also wager Team Fortress 2 sold several million copies considering its immense popularity 3 years post-release.
You're misquoting DICE. They said it had more sales than either console, not both. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/03/battlefield-bad-company-2-players-prefer-pc-to-console/ Also, its telling that you had to go back so far in order to name a handful of high selling shooters. I'm not arguing that Crysis's sales represent the upper limit of what first person shooters have ever sold on PCs, I'm saying that in recent times, it seems to mark the limit. Shadow of Chernobyl is the only game you named released in the same timeframe as Crysis or afterwards, and its 2 milliion sales are in the same ballpark as Crysis's 1.75 million sales. Success is never guaranteed, but going to where the majority of fans of X game type are increases a game's chances of success.You're misquoting DICE. They said it had more sales than either console, not both. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/03/battlefield-bad-company-2-players-prefer-pc-to-console/ Also, its telling that you had to go back so far in order to name a handful of high selling shooters. I'm not arguing that Crysis's sales represent the upper limit of what first person shooters have ever sold on PCs, I'm saying that in recent times, it seems to mark the limit. Shadow of Chernobyl is the only game you named released in the same timeframe as Crysis or afterwards, and its 2 milliion sales are in the same ballpark as Crysis's 1.75 million sales. Success is never guaranteed, but going to where the majority of fans of X game type are increases a game's chances of success.CarnageHeart
Regarding Bad Company 2, that's what I meant. I didn't say it sold more than both versions combined, but maybe saying sold more than either version would've been clearer. In any case, it's the best-selling version.
I had to cite older games because multiplatforming is making it hard to discern which version of recent games sold how much - as you yourself noted (so how can you tell the limit?). PC also has thriving digital distribution which makes everything even hazier. But at least I have one recent example in Battlefield: Bad Company 2. And there's no doubt in my mind that Call of Duty destroyed Crysis on PC as well.
There's no shortage of FPS fans on PC, the platform is home to the biggest FPS fanbase around. It's just that the selection is wider and more compelling so it's spread out more. There is no other platform that could support so many ongoing popular online FPSs (Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 2, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Battlefield 2, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, Quake III: Arena, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Call of Duty: United Offensive, Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 1942, etc, etc.) as well as (multi)million selling single-player FPSs like Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R..
Q4 2011 - Rumors surface that a new console from (insert name here) is in the works but no proof of concept is given.
2012 - Amateur CG rendering of new consoles start appearing on the Internet. Web bloodhounds uncover patent office records of (insert name here) filing new console related patents.
Q1 2013 - Official word confirms that the next gen has entered the conceptual stages.
Q2-Q3 2013 - At a gaming related event, computer hardware is seen running a 2 minute long tech demo for a new mystery IP using a new mystery engine that is suppose to be comparable to what we can expect from the new systems.
Q1 2014 - The first official specs and pictures of new consoles are released and a target date of Q4 2014 is loosely stated.
Q3 2014 - Previously stated release date is pushed back to an as of yet TBD time.
Q2 2015 - Final release date is announced that falls smack dab in the middle of the holiday shopping season.
11/2015 - System is released in extremely limited quanities. Lines circle the globe, pre orders exceed the actual and previously overestimated amount of hardware by roughly 100% as half of all available units are reposted on Ebay by scalpers at 500% markups.
Q2 2016 - Systems are marginally available at retail and most if not all preorders are now filled.
You heard it here first people.
Personally, I hope it'll be a while.
Just to clarify my earlier post.I don't hate consoles, I had a X-BOX at one time. But when i was growing up, my parents wouldn't buy a Nintendo or Atari, or Sega, or whatever was hot at the time...I spent a lot of time and money in arcades anyway. When I got my first computer,I started PC gaming and I enjoy it more than console gaming. So, nothing against consoles, I just prefer the PC
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment