Well from a pure logical viewpoint we would all recognise something like this:
When a new console (which has huge 3rd party support) we would see a huge jump in graphical tools and new ways to bring coats of paint to games.
Then after a few years, this spike will drop, and then usually in the last few years it would lock overall advancement down on the PC in some ways (granted weve only really had 2 gens to go for with all out idendical games across platforms).
Without The Console the PC games would likely just have a steady rise of visual fidelity, point being that I do nto expect that tne end results would be that far from eachother.
Sure if it were PC only it would be much easier to ditch old tools and API in favor of new ones, which would make the climb more constant and stabile, since the lowest common denominator would be specified by the company who made the games, on how mig of the market they aimed for, where as on consoles they ARE and always will end up being the lowest common denominator of multiplat games. So basicly: Are the consoles to blame themselves? No, had we had another 5 year console cycle, we would barely have noticed, and the industry would be happy on thier merry way. With the spike and valley being all well and good (and we could then debate the deminishing return of tech)
The longer console cycles DO have an impact, ignoring this, or dismissing it, is a really dumb thing to do by logical standpoints (you cold just read the aforementioned news, interviews, or simply ask smeone working in the industry to get that answer), having the avaiable resources you have LOCKED for too long WILL slow the evolution of graphics. But this is not the fault of consoles, but rather the refusal from two of the bigger Corps to get thier new consoles out the door.
Bla bla, boiling down. Consoles holding PC back? not by default, it simply change the graphical evolutionary curve due to a larger marketshare having avaiable powerful hardware at the launch of a console and then have it trailing down). Too long console cycles? (Meaning this one specifically) Yeah, it would. BUT if it were PC only we would reach a point where developing a game would simply become too expensive. Time is not as big an issue as people tend to belive, as I am somewhat willing to bet that the art of downscaling texturesizes and details on things takes about the same amount of time as to make the relatively high detail models to begin with.
Huge addendum (because they are linked): When that being said, what we judge here is ONLY graphics, we will reach a point where it is simply too expensive to invest in, so the real slowing is showed in AI, gameplay ideas and setting. These are the biggest casualties, however these are not due to consoles per say, but rather overall consumerbase. The more people needed to have an interrest in games, the less challanging can they be (since the lowest denominator in the consumers are what dictates this). So the more expensive a game becomes the more consumers it has to break even. And the less original can they afford to be (in order to make the games resonate with as many people as possible). Again not the direct fault of consoles nor PC, but the growing consumerbase and the bleeding of money from the industry (quick calculation the games might take 4-6x amount of money to make then last gen by now, but why is it then needed to have 10x the money from sales, just to break even? and I assure that the Devs are not seeing alot of that money. R&D takes some of it, but not the remaining 40% increase in capital which wer supposed to flow through. (note: % have been pulled out of the backside, sales required to break even are tagen from last gens interviews on needed cash to break even compared to now, dev costs are relatively easy to find).
Log in to comment