Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

superman_squirts t1_jacmgu2 wrote

Reply to comment by GeorgeMyght in Console Manufacturers Will Switch To 3-4 Year Upgrade Cycles Like PCs, Says CMA by Darren-B80

So you’d rather consoles not provide the most up to date technology? Or not provide cheaper alternatives?

−7

GeorgeMyght t1_jacnyzo wrote

I want the system to carry the same specs through it's generation and then get replaced by the next generation like usual. At least the expansion pack for the Nintendo 64 didn't make you have to get another system.

4

superman_squirts t1_jacuslu wrote

Don’t deflect the question, your answer is “Yes, I want old hardware in my console”. You just feel entitled to having the best specs on a computer (aka console) and don’t want anyone else to have something better because you don’t want to spend money on it for yourself.

−6

GeorgeMyght t1_jacvd4q wrote

I could be a child like you're being and say "Superman_squirts wants a world where we get the New New New Nintendo 3DS Series X!" but I choose not to.

Did you buy the 32x and the Sega CD attachments for your Sega Genesis? Are you bothered that there wasn't a slightly beefed up version of the SNES before the Nintendo 64 came around?

1

superman_squirts t1_jacwlll wrote

I’m not that one having a tantrum that wants to have his big boy toy and cries like a baby when someone has a better bigger toy.

And now you are using extreme arguments to prove a point you have no ground to stand on. But let’s go with your stupid argument… if a year later someone wants to buy the PS6 XXL+ Xtreme then sure, that’s fine by me. It’s only a problem if new games won’t play on the original , but that will never happen. Game designers aren’t going to produce titles that will only work on a fraction of a fraction of the market. You are just upset because you wouldn’t be able to run games on Ultra on a 5 year old system.

0

GeorgeMyght t1_jacxigg wrote

You're the one telling another person what they want and what they mean by what they say...but go on about the "tantrum" when you're the one who initiated aggression when we're only talking about video game consoles.

1

superman_squirts t1_jacy0lm wrote

Calling you out on lying isn’t aggression, but you starting out with name calling and now gaslighting really speaks for itself.

1

GeorgeMyght t1_jacycyx wrote

Lying? lol

0

superman_squirts t1_jad03xm wrote

You haven’t actually denied anything I have said. By all means enlighten me as to any other reason you’d oppose the idea of being able to upgrade your console other than wanting to have a top of the line computer for 5 years without having to spend more money on it.

If new games would literally not function or be made for older versions, I’d agree with you. But that’s literally not the case, and if anything, going to an upgrading platform will extend the life of consoles. Having to buy a brand new one every 5 years doesn’t always guarantee backward compatibility. So you can just keep buying the new games for an older system with lower graphics.

1

GeorgeMyght t1_jad15bm wrote

Top of the line computers don't exist for long. Another better piece of hardware for it is always around the corner. It's part of why I don't do much PC gaming. Looking at specs and figuring out how well it'll run is a pain. Consoles are never "top of the line" since PCs will always be ahead of them... but before you knew a console game would run and run well rather than it being like "It RUNS on the OG but it's pretty janky. Get the newest version of the system and you won't have those performance issues."

I don't demand backwards compatibility. Nobody did until the PS2 happened. I don't make games or consoles so I have no idea how hard it is to make a system backwards compatible. I don't throw out old hardware so I'm not worried about that.

2

superman_squirts t1_jad2znx wrote

The people responsible for a good gaming experience are the game designers, not the console developers. They would be incentivized to make sure the OG system plays just as well (albeit with less graphics) to maximize sales.

Games will still be optimized for the older system because there are plenty of people out there that either will choose not to, or simply couldn’t afford to buy a new one. Just how old computers still run new games without an issue, you just can’t max out the settings anymore.

And then when your console finally breaks or ages to the point where you want to experience top tier graphics again you can choose to buy an upgrade. Games are nearing the point where the diminishing returns of graphics Vs processing power aren’t noticeable enough for it to ruin the gaming experience, so buying each upgrade won’t even be necessary.

1

GeorgeMyght t1_jad440k wrote

That sounds like it would be really annoying for the people making the video games.

I don't have a PS5 of Xbox Series so I gotta ask...do the games have "make the graphics look better or worse" settings in the options the way PC games have for so long?

The diminishing returns and the fight against it are why it's stupid that Sony and Microsoft are willing to sell at a loss. Tons of games have meh graphics and sell insanely well. I say just make the system be whatever it is and leave it like that until you can affordably make a new system to take its place. Those who care so much about top tier visuals can enjoy the PC rat race.

1

superman_squirts t1_jad5em4 wrote

I haven’t seen an option for it because there isn’t a need for it, everything is optimized already. They wouldn’t even need to add it so long as the game could detect which system it is running on, which would be simple to accomplish. Games that can auto detect settings isn’t anything new anyway, and will probably be even more accurate because rather then working with a mishmash of parts they really only will need to work with a handful of different models.

2