Hardware Possible Reasoning for the CPU.

[Ergo]

I think *a lot* of people do not realize that pubs (and devs) spent a god-awful amount of money ramping up for PS360-spec machines for the current gen, when this gen was getting started.

This meant that they bought tons of equipment, developed engines, staffed up, bought software, etc., with an assumption that the PS360 would dominate and the WIi would be an also-ran. When that didn't happen--when the Wii did, in fact, dominate--it still didn't matter: they had invested massively in an underlying infrastructure that favored HD development and to go full-bore on the Wii would mean obscene amounts of wasted money.

Remember: most of the pubs and devs expected another PS2-level userbase, at the very least, between the HD twins, so those investments made sense at the time. When that didn't happen--when the market they expected did not materialize--they were left with a much smaller one that couldn't support all of these HD titles and more importantly, developers (who, remember, spent tons of money gearing up for work they didn't end up getting or had canceled due to a much smaller-than-expected userbase) so, naturally, *tons* of devs failed because when you make assumptions about market size, where your game might actually have a chance on a userbase of 100 million, and that userbase doesn't exist/materialize, you find yourself in a tight spot.

Source: me, someone who talks to devs and pubs--existing and defunct--all the time.

EDIT: and wow is this off-topic.

 

[godreborn]

regardless, I don't think gamers should expect supercomputer capabilities on a system that costs $350 and even less to manufacture. personally, I think most developers want less powerful systems due to the high cost of development. it seems like a number of developers go bankrupt every gen with this gen creating the most casualties. high dev costs usually equal sequel after sequel of lesser and lesser quality. aside from indies, no big developer will want to focus on new ips at the risk of losing a lot of money.

We're not talking supercomputers, videocards from two years ago are already 19 times as powerful as the PS3.

The issue with game companies going bankrupt is usually their own fault, not the fault of the console. Make a shitty game, and people won't buy it. Hell, people are already predicting another video game crash due to the huge influx of shitty titles that had way too much spent on them, too many "HD" ports, etc.

Look at PC games like Minecraft. It was originally coded by a single hairy swedish dude, and now the development team is like, an entire five people, but it's one of the best-selling games of all time. Then look at all the generic-level games coming out for modern systems that have so little point that the commercials don't even show any gameplay, think about all the fees and money used to make shit games, and wonder who's at fault when a game dies?

Of course there's also things the system is in control of, like not putting your games in a country and then bitching that the country is pirating the games instead.

But yeah, usually when a game dies, it's the Dev's fault. Either they did something they shouldn't (spent way too much on low-content games, hyped features that weren't even in the game at the time and never made it in, and so on), or didn't do something they should (no advertising at all, not getting feedback and actually changing things in development, and so on).

When some guy can fire up XNA and make Terraria and sell millions, you have to look at all the companies making shitty console games and shake your head. Check the article for info on what caused the latest crash, compare that to the actions of a lot of upcoming games, and notice a pattern.

And no, I'm NOT talking about bit companies like Square. I'm talking about all the OTHER companies that are suddenly trying to muscle in on the whole gaming thing, and are just shoveling out bad titles. Go to your local walmart or something and look at the game rack, and I bet you've never even heard of half the games there, because there's nothing to discuss about them, they don't stand out, they don't do anything new or different, they're just trying to cash in.

Okay, I guess that does count Disney and stuff making tie-in movie video games, but movie tie-ins are like, god's promise or something. "Spaceballs the flamethrower!"

except that certain companies, particularly sony, r trying to warrant the need for overpriced electronics. I know several people who were suckered in by this high-end garbage only to find what they bought didn't last very long before failing. that is the problem I have with most modern electronics: they don't last worth a ****. my grandparents had a television from the 70s that lasted until the 90s. do u honestly think ur television will still work 20 years from now? it really comes down to how poorly made electronics r nowadays. that is the reason y I don't care about modern-day game consoles. the game may look nice for the time, but if u don't care about online play, it's really only worthy of a rental. plus, what's the likelihood that the console will even work ten years from now especially if it's of sony's optical drive craftsmanship? there's no defending this at all. it goes far beyond "oh that game looks nice." with console developers trying to have graphics and gameplay comparable to the pc...if I wanted that, I'd have chosen the pc to begin with. and, don't give me, the cost. according to sony, at least, gamers can afford 90" televisions making that problem moot. I really don't think the ridiculous price of gaming or what is needed to get the most out of it an unworthy criticism or point to suggest y console gaming is such a disaster now.

 

[TripleSMoon]

except that certain companies, particularly sony, r trying to warrant the need for overpriced electronics. I know several people who were suckered in by this high-end garbage only to find what they bought didn't last very long before failing. that is the problem I have with most modern electronics: they don't last worth a ****. my grandparents had a television from the 70s that lasted until the 90s. do u honestly think ur television will still work 20 years from now? it really comes down to how poorly made electronics r nowadays.

I think that has less to do with "poorly made" modern electronics and more to do with the fact that modern electronics are way more powerful and have way more capabilities, which not only means more wear and tear on them, but also many more tiny, fragile components required for said power and capabilities. The reason the Game Boy series of handhelds is seen as more durable than the DS series of handhelds (for example) has less to do with the DS series being "poorly made" and more to do with it having WiFi, more buttons, more powerful visuals and processor, and many other things that require more delicate pieces to work.

That's not to say that being poorly made isn't a problem at all. As costs go up as the demand for more features and power goes up, companies may have to cut costs somewhere.

 

[godreborn]

the problem rests on the fact that many modern gamers care more about console specs than games. I don't think many would argue that this gen had better games than last gen when it wasn't nearly as much of an issue. plus, in some cases, the consoles, and portables, r becoming more and more watered down in terms of their core usage: games.

 

[TripleSMoon]

the problem rests on the fact that many modern gamers care more about console specs than games. I don't think many would argue that this gen had better games than last gen when it wasn't nearly as much of an issue. plus, in some cases, the consoles, and portables, r becoming more and more watered down in terms of their core usage: games.

How so? And last I checked, specs were ALWAYS a topic of importance to gamers. Remember when we used to argue about how many bits a console had, or whether it had blast processing or not? That's always been a care topic for gamers, it has nothing to do with "modern" gamers.

I feel like way too many people (sometimes myself included) view "the good old days" of gaming in the 90s through heavily rose-tinted lenses. If we actually went back in time and relived those times (with all the maturity and knowledge we have now), we might just have had many of the same complaints about games back then as we do about modern games today.

Case in point: Complaining about a lack of games during a console's launch. People love to rant about how poor the PS3 launch was or how poor the Wii U's launch looks, and yet they forget that the N64 launch had Super Mario 64, one or two other forgettable titles, and that's it. And then they look at the countless great games on legacy systems and complain about current systems like the 3DS and Vita, when those systems have barely scratched the surface of a lifespan that (hopefully) will produce a lot of great games to create a nice backlog.

In short, there was PLENTY to complain about in the "good old days." It's just that it was either A) too long ago for us to remember clearly or B) we were too young to really remember or care, or C) both.

 

[Kurt91]

my grandparents had a television from the 70s that lasted until the 90s.

I swear, those old electronics were built like friggin' tanks. I've still got an NES that still works perfectly. Anybody know the battery life for games like Legend of Zelda? I kid you not, mine still works, and I have no idea why it hasn't died yet. (Which is good. I don't know how to replace those batteries) Apparently, those things will last even beyond what's physically possible...

 

[tronic307]

A cut above 6 year old hardware. Shouldn't this be EXPECTED not celebrated?

It's a true generational leap for Nintendo. They profit from cost-effective, efficient hardware, unlike the loss-leading "PSfree60". They're sort of in their own bubble, and you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way.