PS4 Officially announced

[warpus]

I'm not arguing that by any means, the Wii dominated. That's because it found success with non-gamers. So far, I don't see that happening with the Wii U. The Wii was a craze and fad that flew out the doors on day one. I remember families going all over town, trying to find one console. I could be wrong about the Wii U of course. What's more, if you are a gamer (which I am going to assume everyone on here is) then the Wii was a definitive downgrade from the Microsoft and Sony equivalents.

I'm a gamer and the Wii was the only console I had for quite a while (if you ignore older models like the gamecube, etc.). I have other gamer friends who are big wii fans. It's mostly because we do "serious" gaming on our PC's - the wii offers a more "fun and lighthearted" alternative. I would never play a FPS on a console for example - I need a PC for that.

It was a downgrade in terms of graphics, but not necessarily in terms of gameplay. I still play Mario galaxy on my wii for example - very fun game. And anyway, I'm not arguing that it was a better console or whatever, just offering a different perspective.

 

[Thrawn]

I'm not arguing that by any means, the Wii dominated. That's because it found success with non-gamers.

I think you mean it found success with casual gamers. They're buying a gaming console, and using software on it(yes, I would go so far as to call even the fitness titles games), ergo they're gamers.

The argument could be made that even people who have never touched a digital game in their life, but play sports, are gamers, as sports are also games.

 

[Maniacal]

Not when gamers is almost exclusively used on the internet to mean video gamers. When any of us use the word gamer here we are talking about video games.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I'm not arguing that by any means, the Wii dominated. That's because it found success with non-gamers.

"Non-gamer" is a rather... "intresting" term. Are there non-film watchers that watch film? Non-readers that read?

The term gamer is questionable. I am especilly not fond of the self declared "hardcore" declarations made.

So far, I don't see that happening with the Wii U. The Wii was a craze and fad that flew out the doors on day one.

Another "intresting" term: fad.

I remember families going all over town, trying to find one console. I could be wrong about the Wii U of course. What's more, if you are a gamer (which I am going to assume everyone on here is) then the Wii was a definitive downgrade from the Microsoft and Sony equivalents.

Sorry to blow your bubble but graphics are not what makes a game. The Wii, like the XBox and PS3, provided games, many great. It is softwear that is the thing of great notion and the Wii provided well on the softwear department; from Super Mario Galaxy to Super Smash Bros to Sin and Punishment 2 and so on.

Now I should note I a lover of PC games and a massive Nintendo fan. A confession granted. However it is to be noted that the dismissing of Nintendo for going for "non-gamers" translate not well for the self-declared "hardcore."

Anyway: the WiiU is something I see a hopeful future for it, just like the Wii before it.

 

[sherbz]

"Non-gamer" is a rather... "intresting" term. Are there non-film watchers that watch film? Non-readers that read?

The term gamer is questionable. I am especilly not fond of the self declared "hardcore" declarations made.



Another "intresting" term: fad.



Sorry to blow your bubble but graphics are not what makes a game. The Wii, like the XBox and PS3, provided games, many great. It is softwear that is the thing of great notion and the Wii provided well on the softwear department; from Super Mario Galaxy to Super Smash Bros to Sin and Punishment 2 and so on.

Now I should note I a lover of PC games and a massive Nintendo fan. A confession granted. However it is to be noted that the dismissing of Nintendo for going for "non-gamers" translate not well for the self-declared "hardcore."

Anyway: the WiiU is something I see a hopeful future for it, just like the Wii before it.

Im not sure I buy this. I think its fairly well established that Sony and microsoft cater for "hardcore gamers" (at least as far as console users). I think the success of the Wii was that it opened up the idea of gaming to previously untapped markets. I also think the Wii U is more focussed on the asian market.

The most intriguing thing is the steam box IMO. Its the unknown quantity in all the debate. Im guessing they are going for a xbox/playstation lite type thing.

 

[warpus]

"Non-gamer" is a rather... "intresting" term. Are there non-film watchers that watch film? Non-readers that read?

Are there any true Scotsmen?

Im not sure I buy this. I think its fairly well established that Sony and microsoft cater for "hardcore gamers" (at least as far as console users).

I don't buy that either. I know a couple people who have tricked out wii systems who game exclusively on their PCs and wii consoles. If they aren't hardcore gamers, I don't know who is. I suppose you could argue that they are the "exception", but I just don't think it's that easy to segregate gamers into "hardcore gamers game on this" and "casual gamers game like that" groups. There is far too much overlap and you start running into the whole "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Nintz]

I'm going to clarify my position a bit here.

I own a Wii. Nintendo games on it were amazing. No two ways about that.

I also own a PS3. There were just as many, I would say more, games I found equally enjoyable on this system. The key difference is that it was not just Sony that made these games, but also Ubisoft, EA, Valve, 2K, and more.

If the Wii U is going to succeed, which I see as possible then Nintendo has to simultaneously continue their amazing track record as a developer, but also ensure that 3rd party titles on the PS4 and/or Xbox720 also come to the Wii U. They also have to be at least as good, as early attempts to port to the Wii didn't exactly have success. I'm not sure Nintendo can do that yet. Their history doesn't exactly have a good track record with 3rd parties. It's actually saddening to me, because Nintendo games are, easily, some of my favorite of all time. But when their systems don't have anything else, it makes it difficult to go for. I'll be honest though. If Nintendo manages to support the Wii U well, there is a significant chance I will eventually pick one up. Not at launch price, as I can't afford that for anything, but still.

All that said, I still think the Wii can be classified as a craze or fad, simply because it achieved massive and unrivaled success for a short period, after which the critical successes of the system became fewer and farther between.

 

[azzaman333]

PS4 seems very underwhelming so far. Not sure I've seen anyone saying they're actually excited for it.

 

[sherbz]

PS4 seems very underwhelming so far. Not sure I've seen anyone saying they're actually excited for it.

Im excited for the games industry, but not the console

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'm excited for it in a general sense, it looks like an amazing collection of hardware. But I'm not excited for it enough to be planning a buy yet because hardware without software just takes up space, I need to see games I want before I consider buying it. I think that probably explains a lot of the tepid reactions you are seeing so far, it's a great console in terms of numbers but it's a machine to play games on and we need to see the games.

 

[Sonereal]

I really need to see the games that come out for the PS3, and then ask if $600+$60 is better than just $50-$60 on Steam and playing on my computer.

 

[shadowplay]

It'll be years after their release that I even begin to consider getting a new console.

 

[sherbz]

Im fundamentally opposed to consoles because they can only ever offer a snapshot of technology and then you are stuck with it for X number of years. You can upgrade PC's, and also turn down various graphic features in order to get a game to run better. They are also moddable, much of the content and updates are free, online gameplay is free, and the online community is far far superior for PC games than console games. I think consoles are easy, which is why they are successful. PC's though, with a little more investment, offer a greater return.

 

[Nintz]

Im fundamentally opposed to consoles because they can only ever offer a snapshot of technology and then you are stuck with it for X number of years. You can upgrade PC's, and also turn down various graphic features in order to get a game to run better. They are also moddable, much of the content and updates are free, online gameplay is free, and the online community is far far superior for PC games than console games. I think consoles are easy, which is why they are successful. PC's though, with a little more investment, offer a greater return.

All of that good stuff makes PC gaming great. And PC development a nightmare. You see to not realize that PCs are much more difficult to develop for, and support, then consoles are. This is simply because consoles are standard. Everyone knows what they are working with, and problems can be eliminated across the board. As a strong PC gamer myself, I actually support consoles for this, amongst other, reasons. It gives a stable market to a lot of smaller devs. What's more, consoles are much cheaper than their PC counterparts at certain times. When I first got my PS3, for example, buying a PC that could run the games I wanted would have been $800 or so. PS3, which ran most of them fine, if not as good as the PC, was only $250. That's good for the consumers I think.

Now, I don't actually disagree with your pro-PC points, I just think you also have to consider some other ideas. You seem to be selling the consoles short. Also, as far as I know, only the Xbox requires online payments for servers and whatnot. Correct?

 

[SouthernKing]

I plan to get it in 2015/2016-ish (by that time I'll be in college, so I don't know) or whenever there are enough good games and the price reaches a reasonable point and not FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS.

Honestly though, I am content with the PS4 announcement. Not really earthshaking but there's no real need to be. I was bracing myself something that's ridiculously connected to some social media crap. (Which, by the way, is what I'm expecting for the 720, whenever that gets announced)

My opinion of consoles and PCs are about equal. On one hand, PCs are more powerful and often allow for a better quality gaming experience, plus mods etc. On the other hand, consoles tend to have cheaper upfront costs, plus I don't need to get a new one every 3 years, and (personally) few of the RL people I play games with have PCs.

 

[Maniacal]

Well to be fair to the PS3, blu-ray DVD players cost about as much if not more at the time

 

[warpus]

Yeah, the main reason I bought my ps3 was for the blue ray capabilities. I ended up with a blue ray player that cost less than other blue ray players.. and it can play video games too! Seemed like a good idea at the time, but I never watch any blue rays on it.

 

[Zack]

Yeah, the PS3 was actually a pretty great deal, especially compared to all of the additional costs associated with the 360 (Wi-Fi adapter, Xbox Live, etc.)