-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I want next gen hardware to take risks. Not be the same. Do something unique.
- Thread starter Bjones
- Start date
You are right, it's pretty big, but it was done as an "add on" to the main offer and they mostly mimic where the market was going with Oculus, Rift, Mixed reality etc..
The VR headset is dissociated from the PS4. It could have failed and be forgotten with almost to no impact
unlike what happened to microsoft and Kinect for exemple
But there's no such thing as dedicated "AI" hardware because AI can be anything. At best what you can get is hardware specifically for doing backprop on neural nets or whatever, but I sincerely doubt you can get much over gpu compute that way. And besides, most of the advancement is in the algorithms, so locking yourself into a particular set of algorithms with super specialized hardware is just going to backfire.
The major limiting factor for developers isn't hardware capability, it's market constraints and their ability to utilize the computational power already available to them. Bespoke hardware would only make things worse by breaking existing development pipelines.
The Tegra X1 uses an ARM CPU while the other two consoles use x86 CPUs. I suppose it's similar enough, or at least tools these days are broad enough, that it's not a barrier for most developers to port their games over to it though.
Having a modern NVIDIA GPU has probably made the biggest difference compared to older Nintendo platforms.
Those are the games I was referring to. Stuff like Mario Odyssey runs well, but looks bad doing it.
I don't really care that much about the reasons behind why those games run poorly as much as the fact that they do, and that they would be better games on any other current games platform.
That's a desire for portability rather than a desire for each console to have unique hardware architectures that are very different from one another to code for.
The Switch is a better system for people that want portability as a result of multiplatform games.
If it was totally unique hardware that was completely dissimilar to anything else, it wouldn't be getting those ports.
Unique hardware architectures that are a pain to code for don't push developers to create innovative games. Standardizing hardware so that developers can just focus on making their game without worrying about the platform is what most benefits gamers.
Not having games tied down to a single platform is a great thing.
Making things easier and more sustainable for people who make games (whether larger 3rd party studios, internal studios, or indies) is optimal for consumers. More high quality games, cheaper games, games delivered in a reasonable timeframe, more players to play with - these are things that favor me as a consumer. MS releasing Xbox games on PC or allowing crossplay with Switch is "bad" for Xbox brand but "good" for their total software sales, good for the game publisher, and good for me as a consumer by giving me more choice, why would I ever lament that move?
There is nothing to be gained for consumers to put all of their eggs in a single console manufacturer basket. They are boxes that deliver content, whomever makes the best box with the best services and value should get the most consumer attention. That has varied from generation to generation because console manufacturers will invariably choose to exploit their market position to maximize profit, as they are publicly traded companies and their shareholders demand that they do so.
Sony, MS, and Nintendo have all made anti-consumer moves in the past (including, but not limited to, pricy DLC, online paywalled gardens, region locking, blocking crossplay, blocking voice chat, deactivating servers prematurely, lack of BC, limited edition DLC by way of amiibo, pricy peripherals, BUYING those time exclusives or marketing exclusives for games that don't genuinely need funding, full priced HD rereleases, high HW prices due to unwanted features, removing wanted features in HW revisions, proprietary physical and optical media, proprietary storage, locking out third party peripherals and storage, forcing devs to include new content in ports, forcing simultaneous releases, limiting or charging for content updates that devs want to give out for free, etc).
They are not the "good guys" with 3rd parties being the "bad guys". Everyone is just trying to make money. Allowing software purchases to be more universal and shared is better for everyone except Sony/MS/Nintendo, how are those 3 companies elevated above the entire rest of the industry?
Meh, I just want my next console to be a game hub. Just like the PS4 Remote Streaming and Xbox's streaming is starting to do, I want to be able to play my PS5 on any electronic device in my house, with no over-the-internet hacks or messed up button configs. Other than that, maybe allow the top of the controller to act as a pointer (No Gyroscopic mouse) and I'm set.
This would be a financial disaster for anyone who tried it. There is simply too much money for Sony & MS in 3rd party publishing to risk alienating them like that.
Software innovation at the OS level will be the dividing factor for these consoles moving forward, sans Nintendo.
Software innovation at the OS level will be the dividing factor for these consoles moving forward, sans Nintendo.
That's my point. Developers don't care about power nearly as much as the gaming community wants you to believe. The industry is moving away from raw power being the primary focus. The focus is now on the development tools and middle-ware support, especially with indies gaining more and more influence in the industry. Not being as powerful as a PlayStation 4 isn't too important to most modern developers. If your console can at least run Unreal Engine 4 or Unity at an optimal level, then they'll be interested.
If they're running poorly for reasons other than hardware power, then there's little reason to expect that they'd run any better on other platforms. Poor performance isn't always caused by lack of power. Incompetent programming, or rushed development are also reasons that contribute.
No way, keep the same architecture going forward and support being able to keep your library while moving forward. No point in adding some challenging complication to development, like the PS3 cell, etc.
I wanted a console that I would actually get excited about. A console that would get me back into gaming and one that fitted into my lifestyle.
And...well Nintendo delivered it.
A more powerful switch every generation will probably keep me interested for a long time now.
And...well Nintendo delivered it.
A more powerful switch every generation will probably keep me interested for a long time now.
This is how it's been ever since Xbox came into the equation and I've lamented it ever since. Xbox ushered in the rise of third party prominence and the strength of multiplatform releases as a result. As a result of that, even if you have a clear front runner in terms of tech/power, it hardly matters, because the vast majority of games will have to pare down their software approaches with the LCD in mind. Hence, we get a handful of first party games actually taking any meaningful advantage of platform hardware every generation, which sucks.
Industry is just too bloated now for my tastes.
Industry is just too bloated now for my tastes.
A company that has introduced nearly everything you take for granted in gaming is a company that plays it safe? Lol
OP it seems that you lack technical knowledge and have no idea what you're talking about.
You probably fell for memes.
Seriously, a physics co-processor in 2018+, Ageia called they want their meme back.
OpenCL and Vulkan can do anything, all you need is a good multi-threaded CPU and above average single core IPC performance and a good GPU.
I don't want the console price increased with gimmicks.
Better yet, I hope they remove the speaker and touchpad on the DualShock controller on the PlayStation 5 to bring down the cost and make them cheaper.
And replace the lightbar with simple LEDs like the PS3 controller.
You probably fell for memes.
Seriously, a physics co-processor in 2018+, Ageia called they want their meme back.
OpenCL and Vulkan can do anything, all you need is a good multi-threaded CPU and above average single core IPC performance and a good GPU.
I don't want the console price increased with gimmicks.
Better yet, I hope they remove the speaker and touchpad on the DualShock controller on the PlayStation 5 to bring down the cost and make them cheaper.
And replace the lightbar with simple LEDs like the PS3 controller.
I think he means in terms of raw power and tech, in which case, he's right. Nintendo deliberately avoids using exotic or cutting edge technology in order to save money. Their philosophy instead, revolves around finding new ways to use older, cheaper tech. It's a philosophy that allows the company to both innovate and maximize profits at the same time.
Sony tried that with the Cell, and it almost took the entire generation for the PS3 to turn a profit.
I like my hardware to be really boring. It's just the blank canvas for the media, which should take risks and do something unique.
Welcome to 1985. When was the last time Nintendo even tried to compete on a graphics front, Gamecube? Since the Wii Nintendo has played it safe and relied on gimmicks to set themselves apart.
I think we're mostly in agreement here that chasing unique hardware is a bad idea, and that it's better for everyone if multiplatform development is made easier.
I would rather see exclusives disappear than make arbitrary decisions to try and create more exclusives by making it difficult to port games between platforms.
It's not always caused by a lack of power but the performance gap between Switch and other current-gen platforms is significant.
Could those games have run better with more development time? Possibly, but they were targeting 30 FPS to begin with due to the hardware's limitations, and would have run better elsewhere.
I can't play Breath of the Wild on Wii U or Switch without getting severe motion sickness due to how it runs on either platform.
Even then, the "Gimmicks" are pretty revolutionary and influential. The DS touchscreen birthed the entire smartphone gaming market, the Wii Remote and Nunchuck laid the foundation for the VR controller designs, and the Switch's portability and modularity allows games to be designed with a much greater degree of flexibility than ever before.
I don't know anything about hardware so I can't disagree with the first half of your statement. Sure having hardware that makes life easier sounds good for developers.
But as to features that we as consumers can directly access? I love minor gimmicks. As long as they are supplementary to my overall experience I don't mind things like the share button, touch pad, gyro, or speakers. They tell me the platform holders are trying to give me a unique experience rather than just a hardware upgrade. They distinguish the platform in some way. Nintendo has always relied on this and I applaud them for it.
Haha sad but true....
There's a little motion control on PS4, yeah, that doesn't mean I like it or use it.
The bolded is just wrong though. I mean, c'mon, what about the Wii?
Also, I'm not talking about anything related to VR, just regular gaming stuff.
Having all the machines be similar helps us get better games. Having something unique hardware-wise doesn't really make the games better. Having a wider audience means making games is less of a risk, and that will lead to more diverse ideas in software.
Games getting more expensive made porting a reality. Increasing your budget by 10-20% to increase your revenue by 25-50% became an option, and one that you can't ignore in a profit-driven space (unless you're being subsidized by a console manufacturer, which is their prerogative). I'd argue that the PC has made "scaleability" and "multiplatform" almost a default for all game releases, even niche Japanese games, there's almost zero reasons to not put a game on Steam nowadays because they just flat out sell, even years after the initial release.
To make an overly expensive box that would burn through Sony's profits aka PS3-2.
Exclusives will never disappear. Not as long as first party games and unique control interfaces exist. But I do agree that the future of game development is good engine and tools support rather than fancy processors or raw power. I actually think plain, no-frills hardware actually encourages more exclusives because stock hardware with good middle-ware support will always be far easier and cheaper to develop for than heavily custom and flashy hardware.
I think they would've been 30 FPS regardless of platform. Open world games don't need a particularly high frame rate due to their slow-paced nature.
It's time -
Full colour, properly portable and mass market. ie proper realisation of Gunpei Yokoi's original vision.
From this -
to something like this -
From this concept -
Full colour, properly portable and mass market. ie proper realisation of Gunpei Yokoi's original vision.
From this -
to something like this -
From this concept -
I'm sorry but if you consider graphical improvements the be all and end all of gaming then you're missing out. Graphics are merely the initial attraction it's the gameplay and interactivity that really count.
kinda counting on Nintendo for this, since most of y'all seem happy having PS & Xbox so samey...yeah, it's fine for multiplats but its so very borrring for the landscape in general
strong +1 here, if i just wanted specs I'd be PC only
strong +1 here, if i just wanted specs I'd be PC only
Nintendo does that. Others are just playing it safe with little to nothing new aside from hardware upgrades.
God I hope not. Hardware is not a thing that needs constant 'innovation' or 'uniqueness', when there is still so much room to improve on the software side. This whole chasing gimmicks thing is highly overrated.
The PS3 tried doing something different. It by in large failed and was scaled back from the original vision to something more conventional
The Xbox One tried doing something different. It by in large failed and was scaled back from the original vision to something more conventional
Both Sony and MS got burnt by trying something that their audience didnt want, and they paid for it.
As Rei above just said - Nintendo are the ones who try something different. The others have too much at stake not to play it safe. I see MS and Sony evolving their current PS4Pro/XBoxX into something thats aimed at a native 4K/60 (I hope) focused platform.
The Xbox One tried doing something different. It by in large failed and was scaled back from the original vision to something more conventional
Both Sony and MS got burnt by trying something that their audience didnt want, and they paid for it.
As Rei above just said - Nintendo are the ones who try something different. The others have too much at stake not to play it safe. I see MS and Sony evolving their current PS4Pro/XBoxX into something thats aimed at a native 4K/60 (I hope) focused platform.
I don't care about hardware taking risks. It can often backfire [Sony with weird PS2 hardware, CELL in PS3, ESRAM in Xbone]. Gen8 consoles pack a lot of punch and have wide array of useful services. They have innovated and added a lot when compared to gen7.
But on the other hand, I want devs to take risks.
But on the other hand, I want devs to take risks.
It doesn't really matter if devs don't use it. What difference does it make to have specialized hardware from the consumer perspective unless it means more high quality games. People forget that despite the innovation of motion controls on the Wii, there was an IMMENSE pile of shovelware for that console.
I honestly believe the opposite. That standardized peripherals and platforms can lead to more interesting ways to push gameplay in unique ways.
I honestly believe the opposite. That standardized peripherals and platforms can lead to more interesting ways to push gameplay in unique ways.