What would you buy? A true Next Gen Console or Upgraded 2x PS3/360?

[Acert93]

Scenario:

You can choose only one of the following:

1. Company A releases the "PlayBox" which is a full fledged next gen console in the traditional sense. Upgraded traditional controller (with 2.5" LCD, camera for face recognition, etc or something or other), 4 OoOe CPUs with 32 SPEs, and a GPU 2x as fast as a Radeon HD6850 (~ 3GFLOPs), 2GB of memory, HDD standard, etc. The case is the size of the original Xbox and pulls about 220W. Blu Ray optical disk. Base model is $399 in 2013.

2. Company B releases the "XStation" which is a a Wii like upgrade. It comes with a dual Move controller (that works also as a traditional controller) and Kinect and has some other gimmicks up the sleeve as yet announced. The system has 1GB of slower memory and a 2x Xenos (~ 400GFLOPs, 32 TMUs,15MB eDRAM) and 6 PPC cores. It comes standard with 16GB of Flash memory with an optional HDD model. The case is between the Xbox Slim and Wii in size. Non-movie Blu Ray in the base model (unlocking Blu Ray playback is an extra $40). Base model is $249 in 2013.

3. Nintendo releases the Wii U in 2012 and is =/< $249 by 2013.

4. I am invested in MS and will be getting a new Xbox first/as my primary platform.

5. I am invested in Sony and will be getting a new Playstation first/as my primary platform.

6. If these are my options I am going to stay with this generation.

 

[Acert93]

I am honestly curious what people prefer.

In my mind there are 2 segments(with double dipping of course), the more casual/parent-buyer demographic that this gen really bought into the Wii (and before that the PS2) and then the early adopter/hardcore/enthusiast crowd that many of us here belong to.

I could be wrong, hence the poll, but I have a hard time believing that if MS or Sony try to create a middle ground console like option 2 that this would do well. I would foresee a ton of gamers flocking over to the true next gen product, even at a higher price. As strong as the Sony brand may be and as entrenched as Live is I think in the early go around option 1 would be trashing option 2 and it would get enough exclusive content that would show serious separation that the 50% of the market who cares about the "best home experience" in terms of visuals, framerate, audio, fidelity, and all the extras that come with developers having a boatload more resources to throw at a platform would go toward that platform in droves which would pretty much leave the other platform for dead.

Now watch a ton of people get all excited about the $249 price point, Kinect/Move integration, and prove me wrong!

 

[BadTB25]

I want the true next gen system with a big leap in graphics, sound and interactivity.

I would like see apps that make sense like Netflix, Hulu, IPTV etc that go with the living room experience. I guess a weather app or other quick look type things could be included. A next gen video app client similar to what they have now but with better voice integration that could link to mobile devices, PC, or consoles that would replace having to making traditional phone calls.

I also would like to see a much improved media center that plays all movie file types through your home network.

 

[Acert93]

I want a non-laggy dashboard!

 

[Mobius1aic]

I honestly would be perfectly happy with a "little bit of both" approach. A nice 4, 5x increase in computing and graphics with an AMD Juniper class GPU and native 1080p game rendering would be fine with me. I would want 3+ GB of RAM in such a system though. I'm still pulling for Wii U to be such a system (using RV740 or RV770).

 

[Acert93]

So you are occupying the thread in protest of my options If I had had 2 full on next gen or your option it wouldn't really have drawn out the results I wanted

And that is not to say we may not end up in a scenario where one console is end-result faster 25% or so but $50 or so more which creates a totally different dynamic, which I fully concede. But I am more curious if there really is this "third middle ground" or if it really is 2 primary tiers with a lot of sub-emphasis and they all ball up into one large market and can even converge (e.g. the PS2).

 

[AzBat]

I wanted to pick option 4, but not at any price. This last gen taught me that I can't afford to buy a system at > $300. Things were a lot simpler when I was younger & had less family responsibilities. Next year is going to be hard economic wise & I can't see myself spending $300+ on a new system when I have one that's doing the job just fine. Plus, Halo 4 will work on the 360 & I'm OK with that. However, in 2013 I'll be ready to upgrade my existing system(hopefully it's still running, crosses fingers). My tastes have changed & I'm sure I'll be fine with slightly upgraded Xbox since I don't really have much complaints about the gaming side of things on the current Xbox.

Tommy McClain

 

[I.S.T.]

Where is the "I'll buy whatever they put out as long as they have good games" option?

 

[djskribbles]

I don't think this is about the games. All systems have good games. I think the point is to see what us tech nerds prefer in the next consoles. For me... option 1.
I'm partial to Sony, though, because I've owned every playstation and I love Naughty Dog, Polyphony Digital and Sony Santa Monica (Insomniac and GG are also up there) so I'm curious to see what they'll do next. Plus I think most games will be multiplatform anyway.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If they don't do a major upgrade I'd probably just go back to PC. Although I'm not endorsing the specifics of said upgrade mentioned in the OP in any way (like I couldn't give a damn if my controller has an LCD screen or camera). Also higher price point than $399 wouldn't necessarily dissuade me, as long as the price is met with performance.

 

[hoho]

I want RTSes, MMOs, fast FPS'es and 4x games. So far no console has had a decent selection of them or have had incredibly dumbed down stuff. Until they do I'll just stay on my PC.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I prefer the first option, but will basically buy any machine from MS and Sony and will keep somewhat up to date PC at all times as well. Gaming between my systems varies a bit from time to time. I haven't actually played anything on consoles since Mass Effect 2... and I'm more than ready for next gen. I will go through all the major releases that I have missed once I get myself around to it. It's nice to get all those games dirt cheap now.

 

[Svensk Viking]

Out of those, I would stick to PC

If I were to have a console as well as the PC though, most likely Wii U

Tbh, the most appealing thing to me when choosing next-gen is whether it has free online and such

 

[Prophecy2k]

I picked option 1, i.e. the truly next gen box as my ideal situation. However in reality i'm not so fussed. I'm still impressed by the best that this gen has to offer, so even if the next gen boxes are only 10% more powerful, i'll still be impressed with the biggest games of those boxes, and as long as they're well supported i'll upgrade.

I guess i just like me some shiny new things

 

[Arwin]

I want my typical 'x8' better hardware! Otherwise, feel free to postpone next-gen some more, because then what's the point, really? I'm not saying that the x8 hardware all needs to go to better graphics though - obviously good services have become just as important.

 

[AntShaw]

I go for Option A. In addition after spending a year with 'movement' on my consoles, I've got no need for that next gen. Hopefully we can have an option to not be forced into it as a console option.

 

[Phil]

Interesting poll. I voted commited to Sony, which is the most likely scenario for me, but not exclusively. As hinted in the other thread, software is key.

The most powerful console is not worth a damn without the games of interest on it. That said, where the software lands is pretty much down to its projected success.

Having that said, I think Nintendo should be extracted out of the discussion, since they have moved out on being a direct competitor and have instead opted to appeal to a new and different market with Wii. Their next console is a logical progression on that front and will continue to be successfull while not exactly appealing to the core Xbox and PlayStation market.

So where does this leave the above scenarios of 1 and 2? If we do have Microsoft (I'm using this scenario as a PlayStation customer - if it were Sony going with the expensive option, I'd get them case closed) going after the super next gen console pushing each and every boundary and Sony going with 2 - then it obviously depends on where the software goes. This might actually open the door to buy both consoles as you will have quite different experiences on each. In this scenario, it might also create a problem for many publishers on where to put their next games: A super next gen console may be too expensive to develop for if you have a successful option 2 being the safer bet. The result would be having few very impressive games on console A while the majority of fun and broad-apeal games land on console B.

If however both consoles of Microsoft and Sony end up being similar in performance and price, then we'll probably have a similar situation to this gen where most software ends up on both with the few exclusive franchises dictating which console appeals to which users. In this case, I'd be staying with Sony for the games I've already enjoyed this gen.

 

[Rodéric]

Wii U for me, depending on what it turns out to be.
(To play Wii games at first, so backward compatibility a must.)

 

[TheChefO]

So where does this leave the above scenarios of 1 and 2? If we do have Microsoft (I'm using this scenario as a PlayStation customer - if it were Sony going with the expensive option, I'd get them case closed) going after the super next gen console pushing each and every boundary and Sony going with 2 - then it obviously depends on where the software goes. This might actually open the door to buy both consoles as you will have quite different experiences on each. In this scenario, it might also create a problem for many publishers on where to put their next games: A super next gen console may be too expensive to develop for if you have a successful option 2 being the safer bet. The result would be having few very impressive games on console A while the majority of fun and broad-apeal games land on console B.

This is the real concern.

I think if MS launches first with a xb1.5 (option#2), Sony will be happy to follow suit with a slight upgrade and pocket the change in savings for development and hardware costs upfront.

It wouldn't be collusion as much as both winking in agreement that this is what "nextgen" should be.

Sony is in financial trouble and the ability to save on hardware by not having to dip in the red for each box sold would be ideal for them.

Not to mention, as we saw in the ps2 days, the weakest console dragged down the other two as far as multiplat games development was concerned. Sure multiplat games looked better on Xbox or GC than ps2, but nowhere near their potential.

If this scenario played out with MS launching first with #2 (pun intended), I'd expect games development to be held back by this xb1.5 and so any money spent by Sony to produce a true next-gen console would be wasted as it wouldn't be taken advantage of aside from their internal studios.

That's why I don't think Sony would go all-in if MS drops #2.

That would be the worst case scenario for us gamers and the gaming industry as a whole.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

However, I don't think this is likely to happen for a few reasons:

1) As I said, it would likely cause games advancement to stall as the hardware would be severely limiting progress in pushing what is possible with games.

If this happens, the industry itself may collapse as people lose interest and instead of plopping down $60 for a game that is the same as the one they paid for 8 years ago, perhaps they just waste some time on their ipad4 with a few $2 app/games that have equal/better graphics.


2) Gamers may just decide (not worth the investment) and keep their existing boxes.

Then a big player (Google/Apple) comes along offering a real "next-gen" experience. Such disruptive entrances to the industry have taken place before where the leaders of the industry were asleep at the wheel.

Last one of this magnitude though would be when Sony entered the market and thrashed the two sleeping giants at the time with significantly more powerful hardware, offering experiences unlike anything possible on any other machine available and elevating what is expected out of a "console".


3) As Sony taught everyone this gen with ps3, in order to stay at the top, you need to earn it. Expecting consumers to buy in "no matter what" is a foolish gamble that leaves the door open to competition. Neither Sony, nor MS want to give up what they have in marketshare/mindshare and I'm sure both would like to grow it bigger.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think the likely scenario is both will try to leverage their existing consoles well into the future while also at the same time, offering richer premium experiences. This gen has for the first time proven the premium multi-sku approach works in the games industry. Both for consoles and games.

Now if the premium truly is premium (ps4 vs ps3) they can more readily address these markets and come up with more effective advertising which takes advantage of the demographics they are both looking to reach.

Nextgen consoles for the "hardcore", and existing consoles for the family/casual/extended gamers.

 

[dobwal]

I go where the games are. Plain and simple. If a platform has some compelling titles that I have a strong desire to play, I will purchase that platform.