• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

PlayStation "Neo", Xbox "Scorpio", Nintendo NX: mid-generational leaps

Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
Yet again, the existence of conspiracies is a reality. Laughing about it won't make them go away. Conspiracies are going on all the time, they are just not ridiculous and cartoony like you've depicted them. There's always someone operating some agenda and there's always other people who share that agenda. That's the real world. You've been very blind to the real world if you can't admit conspiracies really do happen on a daily basis. Laughing at the very concept of a conspiracy has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand and only makes your position look weaker. It also reduces your credibility because it tells people you don't think it's possible that people would lie to further an agenda.

I agree 110% that there are plenty of true conspiracies, some terrible, some minor. However, I also can't do what you do and just believe them willy nilly with no supporting evidence or even logic behind them. Since you haven't actually presented any valid argument or points that would back up your assumption, how am I not supposed to just laugh it off? Give me a reason to not find it hilarious. At least the 9/11 insider videos have a convincing argument rather than just assuming things (or not presenting any reasons for assumptions).

Also, selling consoles at a loss is good for consumers, what would PC's have to gain about making something pro-console up?
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
I agree 110% that there are plenty of true conspiracies, some terrible, some minor. However, I also can't do what you do and just believe them willy nilly with no supporting evidence or even logic behind them. Since you haven't actually presented any valid argument or points that would back up your assumption, how am I not supposed to just laugh it off? Give me a reason to not find it hilarious. At least the 9/11 insider videos have a convincing argument rather than just assuming things (or not presenting any reasons for assumptions).
You provided nothing for your side. just more of the same claim. So you're not ahead of that part. And you're forgetting Hitchens's Razor. That which was presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Logic and reason is more than enough to dismiss a claim that was presented in the first place without any proof. If that's not good enough for you... well too bad. That's your problem, not mine. I'm under no obligation to prove you wrong and if you don't like my dismissal of your claim, I don't really care. Trying to paint it as ridiculous is just a case of an ad hominem, particularly, you're making an attempt at poisoning the well, by trying to paint it as some ridiculous thing to believe, you're trying to associate it with something people won't take seriously, so they won't look closely at what I have to say. Which tells everyone else that you've got something to hide. Usually, people are going to assume you knew full well what I was saying was true and you want to hide that. If you don't actually think that, then you should stop doing this because it's what people are going to assume when you do it.

Also, selling consoles at a loss is good for consumers, what would PC's have to gain about making something pro-console up?
Because it's constantly used by those same PC gamers as "proof" as to why consoles are doomed. They don't seem to understand the selling at a loss thing as you described. Because the "death to consoles" PC crowd are always treating it as a negative. Good for consumers never enters their minds. They DON'T CARE about those consumers because those are "filthy console peasants". Their reasoning is, instead, that because console gamers are so "entitled" according to them (really the other way around, never seen such a hugely self-entitled group as PC gamers), that they expect things to always be at a certain price. There is some truth to that, of course. But because of that, consoles have to sell at a loss to get down to that price. Except they're not selling at a loss. It's a fiction they made up to make consoles look weaker. Just because you can spin it as pro-console doesn't mean that's what they're doing.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
Hitchen's Razor is fine and all, but that doesn't mean you didn't make claims of your own. The way you are using it is in a manner of avoidance, as an excuse not to provide data which you also know you cannot. I've told you based on your criteria we are at an impasse, I cannot get you Sony's financial data, only implications straight from Sony employees, and leading industry cost analysts. While that might be good enough for most people, for you, you need actual proof rather than educated theory. I could not possibly win an argument with you that we landed on the moon either.

I find it so strange that you write this narrative about PC gamers when as one of the only die hard PC gamers on this board I seem to defy almost everything you assume they are. You say that PC gamers believe that selling at a loss is "proof" that consoles are doomed, when I'm clearly telling you it's the opposite, selling at a loss is pro-consumer, and also a valid business model.

And speaking of cheap arguing tactics, I've noticed quite a few dismissive arguments from you before, that I just swept under the rug. Apparently you don't like when people do it to you though.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Hitchen's Razor is fine and all, but that doesn't mean you didn't make claims of your own. The way you are using it is in a manner of avoidance, as an excuse not to provide data which you also know you cannot. I've told you based on your criteria we are at an impasse, I cannot get you Sony's financial data, only implications straight from Sony employees, and leading industry cost analysts. While that might be good enough for most people, for you, you need actual proof rather than educated theory. I could not possibly win an argument with you that we landed on the moon either.
Skepticism is a good thing, not a bad thing. The beginning of wisdom is "I do not know." And it is entirely possible for all the "experts" to be wrong about something. Every revolutionary advance in scientific understanding we've had came in the opposition of an established majority that didn't want to believe it. Skepticism must be embraced and protected.

I find it so strange that you write this narrative about PC gamers when as one of the only die hard PC gamers on this board I seem to defy almost everything you assume they are. You say that PC gamers believe that selling at a loss is "proof" that consoles are doomed, when I'm clearly telling you it's the opposite, selling at a loss is pro-consumer, and also a valid business model.
I very clearly already addressed this. I had said that your reasoning was not the reasoning that they were using. Which clearly states that even if it is a good thing, that's not how they're spinning it. As someone who claims to be opposed to so much of the PC gaming nonsense, you should have known better and have known how they love to sensationalize things that deride consoles.

And speaking of cheap arguing tactics, I've noticed quite a few dismissive arguments from you before, that I just swept under the rug. Apparently you don't like when people do it to you though.
I'm very careful about the way I debate. No one's perfect and everyone makes mistakes, myself included. But from my experience most of the time when someone tries to point out an issue with my arguing tactics, they are usually not only wrong, but in reality projecting what they themselves are actually doing. Most of the time it is better to just ignore it, yes. But not when someone repeatedly does the exact same thing over and over like you've been doing. Asking me to disprove your claim, constantly trying to poison the well. Repetition may not make an idea more credible, but it does make a bad debate tactic more worth pointing out.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
Skepticism is a good thing, not a bad thing. The beginning of wisdom is "I do not know." And it is entirely possible for all the "experts" to be wrong about something. Every revolutionary advance in scientific understanding we've had came in the opposition of an established majority that didn't want to believe it. Skepticism must be embraced and protected.


I very clearly already addressed this. I had said that your reasoning was not the reasoning that they were using. Which clearly states that even if it is a good thing, that's not how they're spinning it. As someone who claims to be opposed to so much of the PC gaming nonsense, you should have known better and have known how they love to sensationalize things that deride consoles.
Oh I know those people exist, but using the extremists as an argument would be the same as me constantly pointing out the dumbest console fans as the counter point. Sure we can play that game, but let's not. My point is majority of people on the PC side of things are pretty realistic, and for as much can be exaggerated there is almost always some truth to their points (as well as on the flip side). For every thing that makes you believe there is some major anti-console conspiracy, there is some anti-PC conspiracy on the flip side. Making a game 30 FPS to be more "cinematic", if people truly believe that without thinking it's just PR to avoid 60 fps, I don't know what to say.

I'm very careful about the way I debate. No one's perfect and everyone makes mistakes, myself included. But from my experience most of the time when someone tries to point out an issue with my arguing tactics, they are usually not only wrong, but in reality projecting what they themselves are actually doing. Most of the time it is better to just ignore it, yes. But not when someone repeatedly does the exact same thing over and over like you've been doing. Asking me to disprove your claim, constantly trying to poison the well. Repetition may not make an idea more credible, but it does make a bad debate tactic more worth pointing out.
I'll remember to call you out on it next time you do it then too.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Oh I know those people exist, but using the extremists as an argument would be the same as me constantly pointing out the dumbest console fans as the counter point. Sure we can play that game, but let's not. My point is majority of people on the PC side of things are pretty realistic, and for as much can be exaggerated there is almost always some truth to their points (as well as on the flip side). For every thing that makes you believe there is some major anti-console conspiracy, there is some anti-PC conspiracy on the flip side. Making a game 30 FPS to be more "cinematic", if people truly believe that without thinking it's just PR to avoid 60 fps, I don't know what to say.
Extremists can be relevant. Not always. But they can. They are relevant when they hold a lot of power or influence. In that case, it doesn't matter if there are far more that are reasonable, if these select few have so much influence. In this case, the two examples are perfect examples of this. The anti-Pc ones you mentioned largely are not relevant. they don't accomplish anything, no one listens to them, they're not taken seriously. So they're irrelevant. But on the flipside, the radical PC gamers are taken very seriously, have very dedicated followings, and most news outlets take whatever they say as simple fact no matter how demonstrably wrong it is. You see this all the time in feminism, which I bring up because I've seen you complain about that before (please no feminism debate in here). But the point is that it doesn't matter how few in number the radicals are because of the amount of power they have. If numbers were all that mattered, money in politics would be a non issue since it's such an incredibly tiny minority of Americans bribing politicians. Which totally ignores how this tiny minority has the majority of the power. I hate to say this but....
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman_fallacy
It's relevant when the extremists hold the power and dismissing it because it's not representative of the true majority doesn't change what is being done with that power and influence.

But anyway we're talking in circles. I don't think there's much more to say. I'll end it with something I am hoping these new consoles will have. I hoping they'll all have modular hard drives like the Xbox 360 had. I know they all support external drives now so it's not as big of a deal, but still it'd be nice if we could freely expand the internal storage rather than jacking up the original sale price for everyone with a larger hard drive. Sometimes we just can't afford another thing to plug into an outlet since there's no more room, or even hitting the limit on the breaker for that outlet. Having an internal drive that we can swap out would be more efficient. USB 3.0 powered drives that don't need external power are nice too, but those are not the norm yet. There's also the issue of space, might not even be room for one.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
That wasn't a contradiction. Console generations exist because the technology remains viable and newer technology is prohibitively expensive and/or the current hardware is still selling well and there's no need to move on.

Nintendo are not in either position. They ended the Wii early, yes early. The Wii had plenty of life left. It was still selling well, and the games were still good. The attach rate was high. The Wii could have kept going for a while longer, but they cut it off seemingly without warning. Bam. Just like that.

And the fact is, the last generation could still be going on. As I said, X360 and PS3 games are still being released. I'd wager that Sony and MS could have waited until this year (Holiday 2016) to release the next consoles and be able to release the Neo and Scorpio as the next set of consoles without having to do a mid-generational leap. I don't disagree that they reacted to Nintendo, but they are still supporting the old consoles, meaning that the generation did not have to end. It could have kept going. Because that technology was still going strong.

Going by the console generation phrase then the NX is the next generation as it is 5 years after the WiiU (2012 - 2017). That is just following the console generation.

Nintendo are following the 5 year console generation cycle. Have done so for a long time. Even though the WiiU didn't sell well, (not the only Nintendo console to sell poorly) the same 5 year cycle is still hapoening. The Wii sold amazingly well and still the same approximate 5 year cycle (2007-2012). I believe Nintendo are moving to the NX now, not because they have to (Nintendo is finally making profits now), but because a approx 5 year console cycle is what they've done for decades. Tradition, not poor WiiU sales is forcing them to put out the NX in 2017.

Yes, the have to. They announced the NX last year ... 2015. That was two and a half years into the Wii U's life. That's called a knee-jerk reaction to having a console that was a commercial failure. You can't tell me Nintendo would have canned the Wii U if it were sitting at 25-30 million. They usually announce their consoles near the end of their cycle, not in the middle of it in a investor's conference.

I feel MS and Sony are just updating their existing hardware because they have to.

What?? How can you say that? The XBO and PS4 are just now getting a full head of steam. Well, not the XBO. The PS4 at least is. No, they're releasing their consoles because the technology they should have released the PS4 (and I guess the XBO as well) with is just now viable. They don't have to.

Everyone who already wants a PS4 or XB1 already has one.

I couldn't disagree more. The PS3 sold around 80 million units, and you think everyone that wants a PS4 has one? Nah. The PS4 is still selling well, and until Sony absolutely stop publishing games for the PS3, the PS4 won't get the full sales it is going to get. Same with the 360 and XBO. A lot of people made the jump, but not everyone has, and not everyone will until the games literally stop (and that moment is soon, since both the PS3 and 360 have been officially discontinued).


Their sales will eventually slow down. So the only answer is to release new hardware for people to buy. They both are not ready for a new console so they will just release updated consoles which many owners of the original PS4 and XB1 will also buy. A smart move by Sony and MS as it keeps the hardware sales comnig in with little R&D costs required to do so. They only have to put the new hardware in the same existing cases and make sure it's all cooled properly and works fine and that's it. No major innovations needed on the hardware front.

Of course they'll slow down, but it won't be any time soon. PS4 sales are very healthy. And like I said, now that the 360 and PS3 have officially been discontinued, expect those numbers to rise when games eventually stop coming for those systems and people are "forced" to jump on the current gen.

If the current PS4 and XB1 are selling so very well now (and there's no new consoles on the horizon), why update the hardware?

Because they can get away with it. Because they saw Nintendo did it twice with the handhelds and they want to try it with consoles. Because they want to stop any advantage Nintendo may get with the NX. It's a solid move on their part, in terms of strategy. I repeat, it's terrible for the consumer, but if it works out, they'll look like geniuses and Nintendo will look foolish.


I would also like to say:

Perhaps the PS4 Neo and XBOS will turn away third parties. Third Party developers are not happy at all with this new hypothetical situation, as they essentially have to create 2 fully tested versions of the same game. They need to make sure everything runs smoothly on both the PS4 and the Neo, and it is going to take a ton of work because these games need to be optimized for consoles.


Let's say hypothetically, NX matches the power of PS4 and XBO as it stands, and the NX sells well. Who would third parties want to sell their games on? Consoles where there is a lot more work they are obligated to do, or a console where they only need to optimize the game for a single build?

Sony and Microsoft may be shooting themselves in the foot here.

PS4 Neo aren't going to make any more impressive games, as they need to run on the PS4. On the other hand, making the PS4 Neo and PS4 builds of the game(on the same disk) is going to create a lot of work for third parties.

The reason I don't agree with you is that they've been doing it with the 360, PS3, XBO, and PS4. That's 4 consoles they've been developing for for the last two years, and it hasn't seemed to be a problem. So now they'll do it again.
 
Last edited:

Lozjam

A Cool, Cool Mountain
Joined
May 24, 2015
That wasn't a contradiction. Console generations exist because the technology remains viable and newer technology is prohibitively expensive and/or the current hardware is still selling well and there's no need to move on.

Nintendo are not in either position. They ended the Wii early, yes early. The Wii had plenty of life left. It was still selling well, and the games were still good. The attach rate was high. The Wii could have kept going for a while longer, but they cut it off seemingly without warning. Bam. Just like that.

And the fact is, the last generation could still be going on. As I said, X360 and PS3 games are still being released. I'd wager that Sony and MS could have waited until this year (Holiday 2016) to release the next consoles and be able to release the Neo and Scorpio as the next set of consoles without having to do a mid-generational leap. I don't disagree that they reacted to Nintendo, but they are still supporting the old consoles, meaning that the generation did not have to end. It could have kept going. Because that technology was still going strong.





Yes, the have to. They announced the NX last year ... 2015. That was two and a half years into the Wii U's life. That's called a knee-jerk reaction to having a console that was a commercial failure. You can't tell me Nintendo would have canned the Wii U if it were sitting at 25-30 million. They usually announce their consoles near the end of their cycle, not in the middle of it in a investor's conference.



What?? How can you say that? The XBO and PS4 are just now getting a full head of steam. Well, not the XBO. The PS4 at least is. No, they're releasing their consoles because the technology they should have released the PS4 (and I guess the XBO as well) with is just now viable. They don't have to.



I couldn't disagree more. The PS3 sold around 80 million units, and you think everyone that wants a PS4 has one? Nah. The PS4 is still selling well, and until Sony absolutely stop publishing games for the PS3, the PS4 won't get the full sales it is going to get. Same with the 360 and XBO. A lot of people made the jump, but not everyone has, and not everyone will until the games literally stop (and that moment is soon, since both the PS3 and 360 have been officially discontinued).




Of course they'll slow down, but it won't be any time soon. PS4 sales are very healthy. And like I said, now that the 360 and PS3 have officially been discontinued, expect those numbers to rise when games eventually stop coming for those systems and people are "forced" to jump on the current gen.



Because they can get away with it. Because they saw Nintendo did it twice with the handhelds and they want to try it with consoles. Because they want to stop any advantage Nintendo may get with the NX. It's a solid move on their part, in terms of strategy. I repeat, it's terrible for the consumer, but if it works out, they'll look like geniuses and Nintendo will look foolish.




The reason I don't agree with you is that they've been doing it with the 360, PS3, XBO, and PS4. That's 4 consoles they've been developing for for the last two years, and it hasn't seemed to be a problem. So now they'll do it again.
The difference here, is that PS3 and XBOX360 still has an extremely large userbase while the PS4 and XBO base was very small. They could earn so much more money with PS3 and PS4 combined.

The PS4 Neo will not really do anything to expand their userbase if the N3DS is anything to go by, so really, developers are spending this extra development for essentially nothing. The Neo will not drastically create another wide userbase. It will only bog down development time and money.

The thing is though as well, is that creating games for PS3 and PS4 was a choice. PlayStation is requiring that Ps4 games have a basic and Neo mode for every game released after late September.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
The difference here, is that PS3 and XBOX360 still has an extremely large userbase while the PS4 and XBO base was very small. They could earn so much more money with PS3 and PS4 combined.

The PS4 Neo will not really do anything to expand their userbase if the N3DS is anything to go by, so really, developers are spending this extra development for essentially nothing. The Neo will not drastically create another wide userbase. It will only bog down development time and money.

The thing is though as well, is that creating games for PS3 and PS4 was a choice. PlayStation is requiring that Ps4 games have a basic and Neo mode for every game released after late September.

Good points.

And don't get me wrong, I hope they fail at this. I don't want mid-generation upgrades to be the norm. I think they're a terrible idea, and all consumers should vote with their wallet and not support this. I did it with the 3DS, to be honest. I stuck with the Old 3DS, and I refuse to get the new one. There was nothing wrong with the original, and I'm not going to let them "get" me. They tried with the DS/DSi and I also didn't get it. They're tried it again, and I won't do it, and I wouldn't get the PS4 Neo if I had a PS4.

That kind of thing is just bad.
 

Lozjam

A Cool, Cool Mountain
Joined
May 24, 2015
Good points.

And don't get me wrong, I hope they fail at this. I don't want mid-generation upgrades to be the norm. I think they're a terrible idea, and all consumers should vote with their wallet and not support this. I did it with the 3DS, to be honest. I stuck with the Old 3DS, and I refuse to get the new one. There was nothing wrong with the original, and I'm not going to let them "get" me. They tried with the DS/DSi and I also didn't get it. They're tried it again, and I won't do it, and I wouldn't get the PS4 Neo if I had a PS4.

That kind of thing is just bad.
Oh and also:
The announcement of the NX was to prevent a knee jerk reaction of investors to prove that Nintendo wasn't going mobile only.

Which I can see very much.

The Wii U was typical Nintendo generation... However, the only difference is that the Wii U doesn't have as many games That were unique.

The NX is coming yes. But Nintendo has been on this schedule ever since the N64 days.

Really, I just think Sony and M$ are kind of scared and are pulling a knee jerk reaction as well. Which doesn't really make sense, as the PS4 Neo and Scorpio can only damage their relations with their fans and with third parties.

But hey! It will at least make the original PS4 cheap. So I may be able to pick one up. So I guess it's a benefit to me.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
I should note that the main reason the last generation was so long was the economic crash of 2008. By no means is it "everyone who wants a PS4/XB1 already has one". I actually waited deliberately for there to be an upgraded model before getting one. Though I was expecting something simple, like a bigger hard drive, which is what I ended up getting. I wasn't expecting something that was basically a new system. But I can see a lot of people who were waiting to get onto this gen will jump at the new consoles. It'd have to offer something great for me to get it over my existing system. And just more power isn't going to do it. Honestly better support for a bigger internal drive might just do it for me. So would switching the disk system back into a tray loader instead of an awful slot loader would be great too. Better cooling system would help as well. I don't consider raw power the real indicator of lasting power of a system. I know I'm in the minority in that opinion, but really I think other things are more important. Parts that can wear our or get used up are a big one.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Location
Milwaukee WI
Gender
half centaur
Extremists can be relevant. Not always. But they can. They are relevant when they hold a lot of power or influence. In that case, it doesn't matter if there are far more that are reasonable, if these select few have so much influence. In this case, the two examples are perfect examples of this. The anti-Pc ones you mentioned largely are not relevant. they don't accomplish anything, no one listens to them, they're not taken seriously. So they're irrelevant. But on the flipside, the radical PC gamers are taken very seriously, have very dedicated followings, and most news outlets take whatever they say as simple fact no matter how demonstrably wrong it is. You see this all the time in feminism, which I bring up because I've seen you complain about that before (please no feminism debate in here). But the point is that it doesn't matter how few in number the radicals are because of the amount of power they have. If numbers were all that mattered, money in politics would be a non issue since it's such an incredibly tiny minority of Americans bribing politicians. Which totally ignores how this tiny minority has the majority of the power. I hate to say this but....
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman_fallacy
It's relevant when the extremists hold the power and dismissing it because it's not representative of the true majority doesn't change what is being done with that power and influence.
That example sounds like feminism and Islam, and to a much lesser extent, PC gamers :D. Anyway.

But anyway we're talking in circles. I don't think there's much more to say. I'll end it with something I am hoping these new consoles will have. I hoping they'll all have modular hard drives like the Xbox 360 had. I know they all support external drives now so it's not as big of a deal, but still it'd be nice if we could freely expand the internal storage rather than jacking up the original sale price for everyone with a larger hard drive. Sometimes we just can't afford another thing to plug into an outlet since there's no more room, or even hitting the limit on the breaker for that outlet. Having an internal drive that we can swap out would be more efficient. USB 3.0 powered drives that don't need external power are nice too, but those are not the norm yet. There's also the issue of space, might not even be room for one.

PS3/4 allows you to use any laptop hard drive, really nice, and affordable. Upgraded my PS3 640gb.

Anyway, Matt, are you in school? Also, are you playing Far Harbor?
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
PS3/4 allows you to use any laptop hard drive, really nice, and affordable. Upgraded my PS3 640gb.
Xbox One lets you use just about anything as an external drive. I saw a pretty nice housing that lets you put a normal internal drive in place above the system so it was out of the way.

Anyway, Matt, are you in school? Also, are you playing Far Harbor?
Not enough money for school. And going to. I'm trying to finish up all the achievements in it so I can play mods. Mods disable achievements, and are releasing tomorrow. And not relevant to this.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
That wasn't a contradiction. Console generations exist because the technology remains viable and newer technology is prohibitively expensive and/or the current hardware is still selling well and there's no need to move on.
You are correct here. My point however there was not that console generations exist. My point was that Nintendo was following the 5 year console generation cycle.

Nintendo are not in either position. They ended the Wii early, yes early. The Wii had plenty of life left. It was still selling well, and the games were still good. The attach rate was high. The Wii could have kept going for a while longer, but they cut it off seemingly without warning. Bam. Just like that.
I would take a guess and say Nintendo had planned for the WiiU a lot longer than most of us realise. Nintendo only chose to announce the WiiU much later in the previous cycle.

And the fact is, the last generation could still be going on. As I said, X360 and PS3 games are still being released. I'd wager that Sony and MS could have waited until this year (Holiday 2016) to release the next consoles and be able to release the Neo and Scorpio as the next set of consoles without having to do a mid-generational leap. I don't disagree that they reacted to Nintendo, but they are still supporting the old consoles, meaning that the generation did not have to end. It could have kept going. Because that technology was still going strong.
I agree with you 100%. This does mean the approx 5 year console cycles would not be being adhered to though.
The PS3 was released 2006.
The Xbox was released 2005.
The PS4 and XB1 had to come when they did because approx 5 year console generations and all. If what you saywas to happen, and Sony and MS waited longer to release the PS4 and XB1 (which I think in hindsight might have been a good idea) it would totally contradict the standard console generation length people say is always there. But as things stand now it is not 5 years sone the PS4 and XB1 has released. That would be 2018. If the mid generation PS and XB consoles ship in 2017, then what? Will Sony and MS still release new consoles is 2018? If they did then their mid cycle purchasers would only have their new consoles as the latest and greatest for 12 months or less. If Sony and MS don't release new consoles in 2018 then people will geta decent life out of their mid cycle consoles, but then the approx 5 year console cycle idea is broken.

Yes, the have to. They announced the NX last year ... 2015. That was two and a half years into the Wii U's life. That's called a knee-jerk reaction to having a console that was a commercial failure. You can't tell me Nintendo would have canned the Wii U if it were sitting at 25-30 million. They usually announce their consoles near the end of their cycle, not in the middle of it in a investor's conference.
The WiiU's low sales forced Nintendo's hand as to when the NX was announced to the public. That I totally agree with. This didn't change when the NX started having development on it or it's release date. Also the WiiU failed in many ways. But commercial failure? That question tends towards subjective answers. If you are taking specific WiiU revenue numbers then sure you are correct. But if you are talking making a profit, then it took the WiiU a long time to become commercially successful. Like 3-4 years but it did happen eventually (just like how the PS4 was not commercially successful till recently either - as Sony's gaming division only recently started making a profit again).

What?? How can you say that? The XBO and PS4 are just now getting a full head of steam. Well, not the XBO. The PS4 at least is. No, they're releasing their consoles because the technology they should have released the PS4 (and I guess the XBO as well) with is just now viable. They don't have to.
That's a good point and shows one very interesting point for the PS4 and XB1. They are both tied to intel, AND, and which ever hardware manufacturers they used parts from. Sony and MS want the most powerful consoles that the average consumer is willing to buy. That is a noble goal and one I salute them for. It does mean both have to wait for such technology is first invented and secondly drops in price enough to enter the general consumer market (at final retail). We both know Sony and MS get bulk discounts for the parts. This means Sony and MS in a way are a slave to the computer parts invention cycle. If however on the other hand you base your technology on your own innervations and worry less about having the best of the best in terms of parts power then you are less of a slave to the computer parts invention cycle.
Just a random thought that entered my mind.

Of course they'll slow down, but it won't be any time soon. PS4 sales are very healthy. And like I said, now that the 360 and PS3 have officially been discontinued, expect those numbers to rise when games eventually stop coming for those systems and people are "forced" to jump on the current gen.
I really hope you are right. But how many people have a PS3 or Xbox 360 and not the corrent gen ones now? I would assume not all that many. I really hope however that you are correct. But I do think the slowdown will happen eventually as nothing can keep selling forever. The PS4.5 and XB1.5 should hopefully address this.

Because they can get away with it. Because they saw Nintendo did it twice with the handhelds and they want to try it with consoles. Because they want to stop any advantage Nintendo may get with the NX. It's a solid move on their part, in terms of strategy. I repeat, it's terrible for the consumer, but if it works out, they'll look like geniuses and Nintendo will look foolish.
If it works out for Sony and MS, that's great for them and I'll be one of the people applauding it. But no matter if that succeeds or fails it will not make Nintendo look foolish. Nintendo need a break from the Wii series of consoles. A Wii 2.5 would just not do. One could also argue the WiiU is just a Gamecube version 3. In many ways it actually is. So 15 years with the same hardware updated twice over and two lots of different controls is enough. A clean break from this needed to happen. The NX is it. Nintendo have totally different reasons to make a new console now than Sony and MS do. The Sony and MS console upgrades I think for them could be just what they need. Well it's not like you play a PS3 any differently to a PS4. Just a controller in your hand and you look at the TV screen. In that regard the PS4.5 will feel somewhat new to many customers too. And the same deal with the XB1.5

Oh and also:
The announcement of the NX was to prevent a knee jerk reaction of investors to prove that Nintendo wasn't going mobile only.
Bingo. I also think that's exactly why. Nintendo hyped up the DeNA thing and with the lower than expected WiiU sales people made that Nintendo is going mobile only assumption. That early NX announcement helped steady the WiiU ship till the NX could be released.

The Wii U was typical Nintendo generation... However, the only difference is that the Wii U doesn't have as many games That were unique.

The NX is coming yes. But Nintendo has been on this schedule ever since the N64 days.
Those are the facts. It's become Nintendo's tradition now to have 5 year console lifespans.

Really, I just think Sony and M$ are kind of scared and are pulling a knee jerk reaction as well. Which doesn't really make sense, as the PS4 Neo and Scorpio can only damage their relations with their fans and with third parties.
I can partially agree. I don't think Sony and MS being scared is the entire reason but it being part of the reason is quite plausible.

"Wii U doesn't have as many games That were unique"
I don't know about this. The WiiU has quite a number of console exclusives.

But hey! It will at least make the original PS4 cheap. So I may be able to pick one up. So I guess it's a benefit to me.
I think you will not be the only one to feel this way. Get a cheaper PS4.0 and a few games on ebay and you're good to go.

The difference here, is that PS3 and XBOX360 still has an extremely large userbase while the PS4 and XBO base was very small. They could earn so much more money with PS3 and PS4 combined.

The PS4 Neo will not really do anything to expand their userbase if the N3DS is anything to go by, so really, developers are spending this extra development for essentially nothing. The Neo will not drastically create another wide userbase. It will only bog down development time and money.

The thing is though as well, is that creating games for PS3 and PS4 was a choice. PlayStation is requiring that Ps4 games have a basic and Neo mode for every game released after late September.
This kind of does not make sense.
On one hand you have the PS4.5 releasing. Having one or two PS4.5 only games would totally be a great carrot to purchase a PS4.5. But having every game available on both lessens the need for PS4 owners to purchase the PS4.5. A missed opportunity there I think.

I don't think the PS4.5 will drastic up the dev time needed to mane a game. If the PS4 SDKs are well enough developed then it'll be a relatively easy to develop for both at the same time. Just like how iOS apps are developed for different resolutions and hardware specs all at the same time. But we are talking mighty PS4 games, not lowly iOS free apps. This brings up the cost issue. Sure the developers can make their games with PS4 and PS4.5 versions. But is it financially viable for them to do so. Will the extra time spend on the PS4.5 version net them enough extra profits to justify their time spend on the PS4.5 version of their game?
 

Lozjam

A Cool, Cool Mountain
Joined
May 24, 2015
"Wii U doesn't have as many games That were unique"
I don't know about this. The WiiU has quite a number of console exclusives.
It has a goodish amount of exclusives, and they are high quality. However, they are not unique. Almost everything that is on Wii U, there is a 3DS counterpart
Super Mario 3D World-3D Land
I mean, this game uses the same mechanics as the 3DS version. Same controls, same everything, except for prettier graphics and better level design. This is not unique
NSMBU
Do I even need to explain this one?
Hyrule Warriors-Legends
The exact same game, just better, is on 3DS, with more characters, maps, mechanics and for a cheaper price as well.
Tropical Freeze-Donkey Kong Country returns
Tropical Freeze is a brilliant expansion to the returns formula, much like Donkey Kong Country 2 was. However, it is hardly unique to its Wii/3DS version.
Smash Bros Wii U-Smash Bros 3DS
This is the biggest mistake Nintendo has made. Their heaviest hitter could be played on the go. This took away so many sales from the Wii U it isn't even funny.
Star Fox Zero- Star Fox 64 3D
64 is not only complacent to Zero, in that it has the exact same story, setting, and levels. But 64 is the better game with better designed levels, more content, and it's cheaper to boot!
Mariokart 8-Mariokart 7
MK8 is one of the best mariokart games ever made. But Mariokart is still Mariokart. 7 uses many of similar mechanics as 8 and it is still fun.
Paper Mario Colour Splash-Paper Mario Sticker Star
Since fans loved sticker star so much, they decided to grace us with another one and dig Paper Mario's grave!
Tokyo Mirage Sessions-Shin Megami Tensei, and Fire Emblem and *insert amazing JRPG here*
You can get that amazing Shin Megami Tensei gameplay, and the amazing characters of Fire Emblem. All without having to deal with a forced JPop setting that is censored to hell! Not only that, but there are so many better JRPG's on 3DS, on both quality and quantity.

Zelda in general-
We have no unique games for Wii U on the Zelda front. Only remakes + a game with the superior version on 3DS.... 3DS has 2 unique Zelda games....

I have had fun with all these games. But these games are hardly original nor fresh. Sure, there are gems such as Mario Maker and Splatoon, but those are a far cry to the uniqueness that the GameCube or the Wii had. On those systems, every game felt different from its predecessors. But Nintendo just kept using the exact same gameplay from 3DS entries of the same series. So much so it almost invalidates a lot of what the Wii U does have.

Say what you want from Metacritic. And I fully understand the arguments against critics,
But when you have a system where out of the top 25 highest rated games on it, there are only 3 games that have unique gameplay experiences to other systems. That being, Mariomaker, Pikmin 3, and Bayonetta 2.
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/25-best-wii-u-games
Again, I agree that critics aren't to be trusted and many more games deserve to be up there. However, this is the face of the company we are dealing with.

Wii U truly does not offer that many unique experiences, and I think that's complete fact. It's not to say that Wii U games aren't good. No, I love them. They just aren't unique, and you can get a very similar experience on another console, the 3DS.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom