Simple question

[Frank]

Is it actually interesting at all which console is more powerful? Just focus on what you can do with it right now. Which means first and foremost: playing games. And a close second would be playing multimedia. The one who has the best content wins, no matter the hardware.

The problem comes with extrapolating: what console will offer the best content in the long run? Because that's what I want to know before I shell out the money for it.

But, is it really? Does the theoretical power of the hardware has any long-term effects on the quality or quantity delivered? Do you get more bang for your buck when buying more powerful hardware? Or does it depend on the implementation? What great games and media are made avialable to it? And how would a very good copy protection figure in to that?

Or, in other words: the deals made. Marketing, plain and simple.

Do most of the (potentional) buyers even have the slightest idea about all of that? Or do they just buy what is cheaper and offers the best content at the moment they buy it? Or simply offers the best advertising?

 

[rabidrabbit]

"It's all about the games" as they say.

I'd rather say, "It's all about the features and software that you feel appeal to you and you think you'll have some use to".

 

[weaksauce]

Greater power gives the opportunity for better games.

 

[Frank]

Greater power gives the opportunity for better games.

No. Better negociations with the companies that make those great games results in better games for the platform.

 

[pc999]

With more powerfull HW there is always new things that we can have and still have the change of play simple games, but the other side is not possible.

Of curse more dont mean better but if it does have equal qualitity and diferent then it is a good thing IMO, as I like to have many possibilitys.

 

[ERP]

Is it actually interesting at all which console is more powerful? Just focus on what you can do with it right now. Which means first and foremost: playing games. And a close second would be playing multimedia. The one who has the best content wins, no matter the hardware.

The problem comes with extrapolating: what console will offer the best content in the long run? Because that's what I want to know before I shell out the money for it.

But, is it really? Does the theoretical power of the hardware has any long-term effects on the quality or quantity delivered? Do you get more bang for your buck when buying more powerful hardware? Or does it depend on the implementation? What great games and media are made avialable to it? And how would a very good copy protection figure in to that?

Or, in other words: the deals made. Marketing, plain and simple.

Do most of the (potentional) buyers even have the slightest idea about all of that? Or do they just buy what is cheaper and offers the best content at the moment they buy it? Or simply offers the best advertising?

Your best bet is to get together with 100 Million of your closest friends and all go out and buy the same console. Userbase is going to largely dictate the production emphasis.

Or alternatively you could just wait until a 100Million strangers buy one and then buy the same one.

 

[AlNom]

I find the technology by itself interesting.

 

[Frank]

Ok, that's where I wanted to go.

What do YOU all think? Does better hardware result in better games? Or is it just a possibility, depending on the deals made?

What is the driving force behind great games? The developers or the hardware? And how do you bind them to your preferred platform? Make better hardware, or offer them better deals? They're in it for the money as well.

And, to be able to offer better deals, you need lots of money in the first place. To invest. In the long run, that means: making more money. By having better advertizing or better games (content).

That's all, folks!

 

[Frank]

Your best bet is to get together with 100 Million of your closest friends and all go out and buy the same console. Userbase is going to largely dictate the production emphasis.

Or alternatively you could just wait until a 100Million strangers buy one and then buy the same one.

Exactly.

But, if you're the manufacturer, how would you go about that?

 

[Carl B]

I don't know if I quite understand the topic Diguru; are we talking about the relevance of the hardware specs to consumers in general, or to users here?

If it's the former, then I don't think it's important. If it's the later, it's not so much which is more powerful (though there's some of that I guess), but more just a flat-out interest to understand their architectures. Certainly the hardware aspects are the only reason a lot of us are here.

But again I think I may just be misunderstanding your original question.

 

[Frank]

I don't know if I quite understand the topic Diguru; are we talking about the relevance of the hardware specs to consumers in general, or to users here?

If it's the former, then I don't think it's important. If it's the later, it's not so much which is more powerful (though there's some of that I guess), but more just a flat-out interest to understand their architectures. Certainly the hardware aspects are the only reason a lot of us are here.

But again I think I may just be misunderstanding your original question.

All that is about it.

But, so, in either case, anyway, whatever: does the hardware matter in more than an abstract way to the people here? Sure, they want to know they make a good deal.

... About what? What matters most? The hardware specs or the available content?

 

[Sonic]

The available content matters over the actual hardware. This is evident on this board as well as the mainstream. But there is another factor that you started to hit, and that would be advertising. Take that one step further and you have the brand behind that advertising and that is what matters a lot to many here and in the mainstream. The Playstation brand itself is very strong amongst the gaming and casual crowd, so a lot of people are looking to get the new Sony system as their next gen system (until they see the price I imagine).

Content is always king in my eyes, whichever system offers the games I want to play is the one I will purchase. Sometimes those games overlap, other times they don't. I just have to make the best informed decision and pick the console that will offer me the best experience for me, for what I want out of it.

The power behind the hardware has never really mattered to any great extent. It has always been about the games, marketing, and mindshare.

 

[inefficient]

No. Better negociations with the companies that make those great games results in better games for the platform.

I refuse to beleive that really good gaming experiences are just a result of a handshake deal between men in suits. Really good games come from the blood sweat and tears of some of the most creative people in the world.

Games are art. Writing code for a games is an art. And obviously content creation is the result of artists. Obviously having money will allow you to attract some of the worlds best artists and engineers. But really good creative talent is virtually priceless.

HW specs are for artists/engineers to get excited about. They are their tools - their paint and brushes. The console makers only really need to get them excited about their specs. Of course some of those numbers do trickle down to the end consumers via some babbling PR rep. But in the end, you really only need to get the developers excited and on your side - and the consumers will follow.

You start with getting the engineers on your side. They are the ones who are going to have to write all the tools for the artists and really help differentiate one title from another. And if the platform allows for really cool or at least unique stuff, the content creators will also get excited about creating for it.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Fair enough, but it's usually the guys in the suits who are in a position to stifle all the best laid plans of the creative geniuses involved in development, and in turn replacing them with crap. And as someone who is essentially an underling, you can be a master programmer/artist/designer or whatever, but the money is your God. If Donald Trump finances God of War 3 and he says "Kratos should wear a tutu," then Kratos is going to end up wearing a tutu.

Immeasurably stupid people like the creature notwithstanding, of course. Hitler riding a T-Rex wasn't going anywhere.

Is it actually interesting at all which console is more powerful?

From a geekiness standpoint, it's hard to escape the attraction of pointless discussion and hyper-extrapolated speculation.

 

[Sonic]

If one wants to consider games as a form of art, then one has to understand that not all art is good.

And yes, a lot of game deals are made because of the ultimate factor being money. It happens quite often, but that can be viewed as a specific company trying to grab the opportunity of having this game (work of art) on their console (displayed in their musuem).

The game console may be the artist's canvas, but it is not the pencil, paint, or brush. The pencil, paint, and brush would be the tools that the console companies suply to the devs.

 

[Guden Oden]

Greater power gives the opportunity for better games.

Yes, and no.

Not BETTER games; just different. Early PCs (we're talking pre-stoneage era here) couldn't do true 3D 3D graphics. Wolfenstein, Doom etc were all 2D games for all intents and purposes.

I wouldn't say a full 3D game is BETTER than a fake 3D game like Doom, just because the full 3D game is in full 3D. It's just that one can do different levels in a full 3D game.

Sometimes power leads to complacency however. Look at Hexen for instance, there are numerous levels you'll SWEAR are real 3D, but open up the map and you'll easily see there's only ever one X/Z position for each Y position; never more than that.

More technically advanced isn't the same as better!


As for the original question, I think power intrigues hardware geeks simply for the sake of it. Much of the time we don't even seem to care about the games all that much as long as we have our bits and bytes and MHzses. Wii is interesting because it seems to attract a LOT of even geek-type people despite being outspoken as not being particulary powerful. Personally I hope Wii's got reasonable power, that coupled with its interesting controller, awesome exterior appearance and Nintendo's long experience with making top-notch software will let us have great fun.

I think more fun will be derived with Wii from its new controller tho than the power increase it has over its older precursor, Gamecube.

 

[kyleb]

More technically advanced isn't the same as better!

Exactly. With a well matched opponent, Pong can be more fun than a large chunk of the crap that has come out since then. More technically advanced means more options, but better games will always be up to those making them.

 

[see colon]

if more powerful hardware instantly meant better games (as in games that are more fun) i'd still own a PSP, i'd have played my 3Do more than my SNES, and i'd havebought more than 2 game for my Lynx.

hardware quickly becomes irrelevant if developer support disapears, if feaures go unused, and if entertaining titles aren't released.

 

[sonyps35]

Is it actually interesting at all which console is more powerful?

Yes. I find it fascinating.

It's very important to the general consumer as well. This is why Sony fans were so excitited about PS3 being the nost powerful console. They were tired of more or less getting pummeled by the Xbox.

Oh, they weren't pummeled, but Xbox no doubt kind of, had the cache. It all boils down to Halo, Halo was a beautiful game that sported immersive graphics not really possible on the other consoles.

Believe me, Halo is going to lose some cache if it's not, one of the prettiest games out there this go-round. Dont think being on the most powerful console isn't a large part of it's singular appeal.

This is bound to be a controversial response, but judge by people's actions not words. Consider the Wii, and how many Nintendo fans not just here but across much more general message boards like IGN were obsessed with hoping it somehow secretly had much better specs than Nintendo was letting on. Hell, a good deal of that obsession is *still* going on, even after it's finally fairly clear it will be a low specced machine.

 

[Sonic]

Of course it is interesting which console is the most powerful, but in the real world it has little bearing in the long run. What Halo may lose if it isn't s pretty compared to another FPS on PS3 it could more than make up for if it is a fun game that can be picked up and played without much hassle.

But this is getting a tad bit off topic now, so let's get back on topic.