*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process

[Deleted member 13524]

I honestly don't understand how people consider a console where we have to go to the store, purchase the games, get the optical disc in, install, etc is more convenient than a stable, high-end-ish HTPC with wake-on-lan + XBMC + Steam.

Buying a console is easier and cheaper than building a gaming-capable HTPC? Of course.
But convenient? After the setup is done, I can purchase a game and start playing it in 10-45 minutes between clicking the "buy" button and the "play" button.

Not to mention the price difference in games, if they're purchased in holiday sales or special promotions, compensates the price difference in hardware after a year or so.

Maybe I'm just this really lucky person who doesn't have regular CTDs and BSODs (in some 55-60 hours of heavily-modded Skyrim, I've had 2 CTDs - interestingly, after I switched the unofficial skyboost for the official 1.4 patch - I can live with that).. Or maybe I just know how to build/install gaming systems (not that there's that much to know, honestly).
But the truth is, I really don't understand where all this convenience in consoles comes from.



Exclusivity in some games is bothersome, of course, but I haven't seen/played a single game that would make me forego the convenience advantage on the quiet+powerful HTPC in my living room which me and my girlfriend turn on/off, start applications/games, control the XBMC interface, all through our Android smartphones.

And yeah, I'm kind of a graphics whore, there's just no way I'd trade my HTPC with a HD6950 for a 6 year-old console. It would hurt my eyes too much.
Sure, for some party/brain training/whatever games the console can be just as good, but not better.
I constantly "wow" my friends with PC games - > skyrim with hi-res texture mods + higher polygon mesh mods + shader/lighting mods + FXAA injector makes the game look like a generational leap over the console versions.
When they show me their best-looking console games (Uncharted, MW3, etc) my reaction is always "bleeeh... that thing won a best visuals award?!".


At least the Wii U will be bringing an actual differentiator for the PC, the tablet controller can get me playing the game seamlessly between living room mode and bathroom or bedtime mode, not to mention some interesting gameplay innovations that may come out of there.
But something that won't give me better visuals just for the sake of being a console? Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Svensk Viking]

I believe that while increased graphical capability is what people get the new consoles for, that unless there is a gigantic difference between the consoles, things like free online and backwards compatibility(at least partial, for Games on Demand 360 games) will be of more importance

I mean, people who have paid for Live since the 360's release could have afforded a whole new 360 by now for that money

During this "HD-generation" the top sellers are also the Call of Duty games, with their sub-HD resolution...Many who look at the back of the box also don't know that most games are upscaled to 1080p

 

[function]

I think a common misconception is that a fast GPU would only provide increased eye candy, and does not improve the gameplay at all. But I personally feel that frame rate plays a huge role in gameplay. Solid (vsynch locked) 60 fps gameplay is a completely different experience than unlocked 30 fps (dipping to 25 fps whenever somehting important happens). Variable frame length is a bad thing for game experience (you never feel you have full control over the game -- really important thing in precision sensitive games), and increased input lag (33 ms frames x 2 = 66 ms input lag, a common scenario in multithreaded 30 fps game engine) make it harder to reach to gameplay events.

All absolutely true, but I just get the same feeling I had before this generation and before the one previous - that most games will still end up at 30fps because the graphics will be better. When you lead from a graphics rather than gameplay POV that's always going to be the outcome. Perhaps more power will change things (this time), but as the pressure to make the best looking game isn't going to go away I think 30fps is just as likely as ever.

I read something recently about an online discussion between game artists and directors and the gist of it was basically, iirc, that gamers were the main problem with 30fps because they weren't yet accustomed to, or sufficiently conditioned to desire, a "movie like" 30fps, and that 30fps was better because it allowed you to produce more cinematic looking effects.

So many game designers / artists / directors seem to be frustrated movie directors. And that makes me sad.

Also it takes more GPU resources to render dynamic scenes (dynamic lighting vs baked lightmaps, dynamic deforming objects and destructable scenery vs static meshes, etc). Extra GPU resources allows developers to create game worlds that are more dynamic. And more dynamic interactive worlds are one of the key things that players always ask for when talking about future consoles.

Again, more dynamic scenes would be great, but this generation's leap in power seems to have been used to make smaller and smaller, more disconnected chunks of better looking game. Looking at Resident Evil 4 to Resident Evil 5, or Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2, or Halo 3 to Halo Reach (sigh) the drive, whether across the generation gap or during this generation, is for smaller, more constrained games that look better.

The real pressure for static game worlds seems to be coming from desire to improve per-frame graphics combined with the belief that a more limited-in-scope and "finely tuned" gameplay experience - with less variability in balance, fewer unexpected outcomes and more consistent player feelings about what just happened - will allow you to make a more successful game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Another issue was the lack of longevity in the platform, and total lack of third party support, both arguably attributable to lack of graphics power (Nintendo even said as much I believe when they asked third parties why they didn't support Wii the third parties said "graphics", hence Wii U was born to at least catch up to PS360). Right now Wii is on it's deathbead while 360 and a lesser extent PS3 roll along in year 5 and 6.

Wii is a generation behind in graphics, not 25%. What Wii proves to me is graphics fidelity can be ignored completely and you can still get away with a successful console if the rest fo the package is right. Had Nintendo had the sense to include decent hardware - a smallish but contemporary GPU and such - then perhaps Wii's legs wouldn't be quite so tired now?

Putting it another way, if MS have the option to include 300 Oompaloompa power in their next console, how many sales are they likely to lose if they only put in 250? How many more sales would PS3 have seen if RSX wasn't downclocked in the last minute?

No aspect of a console can be viewed in isolation as all important. Consoles sell on their overall experience. The final design has to have a balance of price, performance, and functionality, and to invest more heavily in one means concessions in another. Or massive losses.

 

[dobwal]

It's Microsoft vs Sony for the hardcore gamers.

Both company's know that in order to get more sales and to out-do the other they need to whoo gamers with flashy hardware and graphics.

Can anyone really see Microsoft releasing a console with a 6670 knowing that Sony will more then likely try to cram as much raw power into a box as they can get and thus making the there 'Next gen' console look not so next gen?

Releasing a next Xbox with a 6670 and thus possibly having a lot less grunt then PS4 would be suicide for Microsoft.

No variable by itself is going to determine the ultimate value of a console.

How much more power over the 6670 can Sony stick in the PS4? A 6990 or a similar powered card from nvidia? A 7 series based card from AMD? How much of PS4's BOM will be devoted just to keep it cool? Now, tell me which 3rd party developers, who as a group have kept the actual visuals between the 360 and PS3 as close as possible, are going to work to create a tangible visual difference between the 720 and the PS4? What the point in Sony incurring additional cost trying to outperform the 720 when MS will pressure 3rd party developers to maintain parity?

 

[kagemaru]

And plenty of other folk would to. But if XB3 was $200 cheaper and the difference wasn't particularly noticeable, would you still prefer more powerful hardware? Do you think the vast majority of console buyers would? I wouldn't PS2 proved that categorically; the advantage of XB visually just wasn't enough to justify the cost. Throw in all the other stuff like paid-for Live versus free gaming, or your existing friend network, and a difference of...25% in the visuals (slightly more polygonal characters, a few less dynamic lights, a little lower IQ) probably won't be important to most buyers. In fact this gen proves that. A lot of mulitplatform titles look better on XB360 but people still choose PS3.

I highly doubt there will be a $200 difference between the PS4 and 720, and in the end I'll still buy the fastest machine within my $400 console limit. IMO Sony won't make the same mistake again, but if they launched at $500 but was noticeably faster than the 720, I wouldn't get anything at launch and just wait for a $100 price drop on the PS4. Anything above marginal differences would bother me too much to not have the best version of any multi-platform game.

I already know the vast majority of gamers don't care about top-tier graphics, especially if they are serviceable, but if the prices are similar enough, and marketing does it's magic, the more powerful system could end up being the more popular one as well.

The PS2 is mostly an exception IMO. It was out for ~19 months before the competition entered the scene. By this time, it garnered huge developer support, a nice install base, and enough big name exclusives to make any graphical difference mostly irrelevant. The "friend factor" was in full play at this point and I know many people got it just because it's the system their friends got. If the xbox launched the same time as the PS2, and at the same price, I question how differently things would have played out last gen.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Unless there is a big price difference in the BOMs of the consoles, it's unlikely there will be too much of a performance gap between the two consoles. I think graphics can be a big selling point, but it's never free. The question is how much more will people pay for better graphics, and are there other features that can compensate for lesser performance.

 

[RobertR1]

I'm more interested in the service offerings.

I built a high end PC recently for skyrim and bf3. Looking back I kinda miss the social aspects of live when playing games vs just having pretty graphics.

The thing I've been most impressed by recently was how well Your Fitness 2012 works with kinect. I guess I'm getting to a point where graphics are good enough so I'm looking for unique experiences and other entertainment options from the console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I highly doubt there will be a $200 difference between the PS4 and 72...

So do I. It's a hypothetical to underline that there is always a value proposition in which graphics prowess plays one part.

IMO Sony won't make the same mistake again, but if they launched at $500 but was noticeably faster than the 720, I wouldn't get anything at launch and just wait for a $100 price drop on the PS4.

And if everyone else thinks the same, Sony lose a shed-load of money. so why put in a more expensive GPU in the first place?

I already know the vast majority of gamers don't care about top-tier graphics, especially if they are serviceable, but if the prices are similar enough, and marketing does it's magic, the more powerful system could end up being the more popular one as well.

Well, the marketing seemed to convince plenty of folk that PS3 was the more powerful, yet it performs less well on average in multiplatform titles. Thus there's a case for less performance and more marketing. Put in a little additional RayTracing chip, even if its performance isn't great, and tell the world you are offering The Future of Graphics Rendering!

 

[Rangers]

Wii is a generation behind in graphics, not 25%. What Wii proves to me is graphics fidelity can be ignored completely and you can still get away with a successful console if the rest fo the package is right. Had Nintendo had the sense to include decent hardware - a smallish but contemporary GPU and such - then perhaps Wii's legs wouldn't be quite so tired now?

Putting it another way, if MS have the option to include 300 Oompaloompa power in their next console, how many sales are they likely to lose if they only put in 250? How many more sales would PS3 have seen if RSX wasn't downclocked in the last minute?

No aspect of a console can be viewed in isolation as all important. Consoles sell on their overall experience. The final design has to have a balance of price, performance, and functionality, and to invest more heavily in one means concessions in another. Or massive losses.

Wii was a successful console because it tapped the heretofore unknown "casual" gaming market. A lot of overlap with the same market and demographics that play facebook and iOS games, and a large amount of females. Clearly graphics aren't king, there. Now we see Microsoft trying to hit that same market with Kinect, but of course trying to retain their hardcore dominance at the same time.

I think where graphics are king is $60 on a disc, deep experiences aimed at the male demographic. Wii couldn't compete there.

Wuii was a success but still more people decided they wanted a powerful, HD console, either the PS3 or 360. Second Wii flamed out unusually quickly. It also wont end up doing PS2 numbers, a hardcore console, for that matter.

To some extent, I dont even care about consoles not aimed at the hardcore. Wii could have sold a billion and it still wouldn't have existed to me. If Sony or MS decides they want to go low power next gen, they wont exist to me either.

On console power, I think the key is always the competition. Power cant be viewed in any other context.

If cutting 50 oompa loompas from 360 put it at a significant deficit to PS3, it would have lost a lot. The 256 vs 512 RAM decision I think, probably entirely changed this generation. Perfect example. OTOH If pS3 didn't exist and 360 only competed with Wii, cutting 50 oompa loompas probably would have had little effect as 360 had plenty of oompas to spare vs Wii.


Overall it just boils down to yeah, you can have a successful console without being graphics oriented, but only if you dont hope to win the hardcore market. That's where I'm betting Wii U is going to be in a heap of trouble, but a lot remains to be seen there.

The other factors are price, launch date, support. Lets say MS goes with this SOC thing, isn't all that powerful, and hits in early 2013. Lets say the PS4 is full monster and hits not until early 2015, at $399. Xbox being a SOC launches at 299 and sells millions, by the time PS4 comes along they are ready to go to 199 and sell more millions. But slowly PS4 will gain because it's more powerful, the question becomes if it gains enough before it's time for next gen. Basically this model worked for the Ps2 vs the Xbox, although there were other factors, being that Xbox didn't have full third party support or a known brand.

 

[Nesh]

Wii is a generation behind in graphics, not 25%. What Wii proves to me is graphics fidelity can be ignored completely and you can still get away with a successful console if the rest fo the package is right. Had Nintendo had the sense to include decent hardware - a smallish but contemporary GPU and such - then perhaps Wii's legs wouldn't be quite so tired now?

Well I agree. But what kind of experience does the Wii offer? Its not a like for like comparison is it?
I mean....Wii didnt just bypass the need of visual fidelity. It also bypassed so many other things.
Killer apps? Amount of AAA games? Online service? Media functions? It lacks in so many areas. Yet broke sales records. It appeared completely immune from direct like for like comparisons that normally define a purchase decision.
When we see PS3 vs 360 or console A vs console B from previous generations, people compared graphics, games, number of good games, functions, specific franchises......they all mattered.
But not for Wii. Its almost the same idea as the GC. A cheap console dedicated to gaming. Only this time they also lacked in performance. They just added a different controller and voila. It did better than GC even though GC was powerful in its generation and came with the same franchises
People bought it for that different experience. Nothing to do with being better, stronger, faster or having a multipurpose "Swiss knife" in the pocket. Stuff that matter for us but not for others. Not even the size of quality software

I dont think any company can afford to do this. Both Sony and MS want to keep their current users but also cutter into the new experience that Nintendo successfully delivered and profited from.

 

[liolio]

How wonder how one would be to quantify 50% or 100% better graphic in the real world?
100% what is it? A night day difference? "100% better" is a lot to me still I say this whereas I know I would not be able to quantify this even for my-self. You guys are acting as there is some kind of agreement on what 100% better would be. There is not agreement, it's tough to define as it's a subjective quantity (not as personal but a human non linear perception).

So first I don't believe that we have a linear perception of better graphics. Then arts takes the drivers seat in front of techniques. So in my opinion as long as a system has enough memory to run the same assets as another system it will be tough to create some really impressive difference in costumer eyes. On a hardware POV it comes down to the amount of RAM and ROM but growing usage of virtual texturing is further leveling the field and making it harder to differentiate on RAM quantity alone.

Back to "100%" improvement running the same asset one system push 720p the other1080p with proper scaling I don't expect costumer to be blown away even less to vouch the thing 100% better. Still from an hardware perspective one of the system does close to twice as much work (from the GPU pov).
The same is true for texture filtering, I expect no system to go away with the kind of shitty filtering that plagues nowadays games. the difference between different levels of anisotropic filtering will be lesser than between bi-linear and any level of anisotropic filtering.
I could say the same for shading, anti aliasing, etc.

Put together are all these "slight" ( perceived as such) improvements to create a greater effect than the sum of all part (like it's on another level)? An equal effect to the sum of all parts (important difference this is better, this too, add up significantly etc.)? Or in the end they won't make it past "slight" in costumer mind?
That's tough to say, I'm sure costumer are not blind and anybody see differences (given the opportunity to compare). My belief is that case one is exclude and that average human perception would be somewhere between the last two answers.

So even doubling (100% objective increase) the GPU power is too me unlikely to erase other considerations from costumers minds such as, prices, games, functionality, etc.

I don't expect anything ground breaking in the next years because the industry is at a limit when it comes to budget and team size. So BF3 and crisis2 will set the bar for a while. there will be improvements but costs of human work may leverage the playing field. Some textures for example in both games I'm sure could be a lot better and it's not a matter of technical limitations. It's a matter of artists time, etc.

Looking into next gen CPU might end more important, you don't want to be out perform significantly by you competitor (but I believe that there is a ceiling here too).

Graphic are important but they are not the only factors defining the marginal value of a console in costumers eyes. Even 100% increase in GPU power won't create a 100% increase in perceived quality, it will still require, +50% in power consumptions ( or more), +50% in die size (or more), you need twice the bandwidth, you'll pay an extra in RAM usage. It indeed have a cost. Using the hypothetical MS rumor as a basis it might cost you the jump from a SoC to a dual chips system. That's greater overhead, you already have to deal with more heat, now you need in a constrained space to deal with 2 cooling systems and more complex air flow. You will have a bigger more complex and costly mobo (more memory chips, more buses, etc.).

Honestly didn't have much hope but that what I though Nintendo could pull out, a cheap SoC that is tough to significantly out perform given today technology and game industry limitations.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Wii Sports and Wii Fit weren't killer apps? They were two of the most successful games of this generation. (An issue many of you are overlooking with Wii is poor first-party support. It was good for the first three years, but then dwindled rapidly as Nintendo switched gears to 3DS and then Wii U).

I don't really see how this is even a debate. All consoles are now a generation (or two!) behind the PC in terms of graphics, yet they're still going strong in sales. And what was the highest selling version of Battlefield 3? Why, the Xbox 360 version. The PS2 continued to sell neck-and-neck with the Xbox 360 all the way into the second half of 2008. The DS blew the pants off the PSP. Even in the PC space, the high-end video cards don't sell nearly as much as low-end and midrange cards (we're talking orders of magnitude). This sums it up:

Graphic are important but they are not the only factors defining the marginal value of a console in costumers eyes.

All comes down to marginal utility. The consumer is ultimately asking, "Is what this gaming platform offers in entertainment beyond what I currently have worth the asking price?" Each individual his going to have his own subjective valuation, and there are clearly very few (although more than zero) for whom graphics are the most important determining factor.

I would have gotten a Wii if it hadn't been apparent than Nintendo lost interest in making games for it by the time I was looking for a console. So I got a PS3.

 

[joker454]

I dunno, I think the so called "hardcore" aren't anywhere near as hardcore as they think they are. To me it's very simple. It's 2012 now, if you really are hardcore about graphics then you should be gaming on a pc. It's both more convenient (download games on Steam), much cheaper (I saved ~$280 just in 2011 by buying games on Steam and not console) and games look/run far better than they do on console (it's not even close). If you aren't gaming on pc then you aren't anywhere near as hardcore on graphics as you think you are, and graphics have fallen down on your list of importance in gaming.

To me that's the litmus test. If you are a pc gamer right now then graphics may be a determining factor in your next gen console purchase. If you are not a pc gamer right now then I bet sticking with your friends on Live/Psn, or just sticking with the familiarity of your favorite brand will be the determining factor in your next gen console purchase. We already saw a little of that at the beggining of this gen where people were buying PS3's in the beginning even though it's graphics were worse for years. It's because they didn't care, they were likely buying into brand familiarity, backward compatibility with their old games, etc, not for graphics which were clearly worse than the competition. We'll see much more of this next gen especially with Live/Psn in the mix, the incentive to stay with your brand is much stronger now, and features aside from graphics like online functionality, social aspects, motion controls, etc, have moved ahead of graphics in inportance.

That's what I think for existing console owners anyhow. For new console owners I think stuff like compatibility/interoperability with their phone/tablet and new experiences like that will have stronger pull than graphics do, which I figure will be close enough on either console for people not to care as much anymore.

 

[Tap In]

, unlike the US where 360 outperforms the PS3 but thats where 360 hardware sales do better.

ok, let me rephrase... higher performing 3rd party games helped to sell more 360 machines in North America.

 

[kagemaru]

And if everyone else thinks the same, Sony lose a shed-load of money. so why put in a more expensive GPU in the first place?

Yeah but not everyone thinks like me (thankfully ) and Sony won't make that mistake again.

All I'm saying is if Sony is willing to eat a bit more cost that MS for better performance, I'd happily make that my main console next gen. Of course we don't have enough information to form an idea about what MS and Sony are doing next gen, so it may go either way.

Well, the marketing seemed to convince plenty of folk that PS3 was the more powerful, yet it performs less well on average in multiplatform titles. Thus there's a case for less performance and more marketing. Put in a little additional RayTracing chip, even if its performance isn't great, and tell the world you are offering The Future of Graphics Rendering!

Marketing only convinced the people who want to believe it or the mostly hardcore, those who care enough to post on forums, that the PS3 was more powerful. Show some games on each platform and it would be a tough argument for the more mass market audience.

I know that marketing terms have been thrown around, but if there is a measurable/noticeable difference, it could help if the prices are comparable.

Edit:

I dunno, I think the so called "hardcore" aren't anywhere near as hardcore as they think they are. To me it's very simple. It's 2012 now, if you really are hardcore about graphics then you should be gaming on a pc. It's both more convenient (download games on Steam), much cheaper (I saved ~$280 just in 2011 by buying games on Steam and not console) and games look/run far better than they do on console (it's not even close). If you aren't gaming on pc then you aren't anywhere near as hardcore on graphics as you think you are, and graphics have fallen down on your list of importance in gaming.

To me that's the litmus test. If you are a pc gamer right now then graphics may be a determining factor in your next gen console purchase. If you are not a pc gamer right now then I bet sticking with your friends on Live/Psn, or just sticking with the familiarity of your favorite brand will be the determining factor in your next gen console purchase. We already saw a little of that at the beggining of this gen where people were buying PS3's in the beginning even though it's graphics were worse for years. It's because they didn't care, they were likely buying into brand familiarity, backward compatibility with their old games, etc, not for graphics which were clearly worse than the competition. We'll see much more of this next gen especially with Live/Psn in the mix, the incentive to stay with your brand is much stronger now, and features aside from graphics like online functionality, social aspects, motion controls, etc, have moved ahead of graphics in inportance.

That's what I think for existing console owners anyhow. For new console owners I think stuff like compatibility/interoperability with their phone/tablet and new experiences like that will have stronger pull than graphics do, which I figure will be close enough on either console for people not to care as much anymore.

There's a limit to how much some of us can afford to spend and an overall preference to not bother with the (even limited) hassle of PC gaming.

I spent a good chunk on a gaming laptop 3 years ago and there's a good chance I'll be building a gaming PC later this year. In the end though I always spend the vast majority of my time on consoles. When people talk about being "hardcore" about graphics, they could just be talking within the realm of console gaming and nothing beyond that.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point, but everything is within reason.

 

[liolio]

I think that another consideration to the problem is "can the gaming industry handle AAAA games?"
Basically if one is to throw a lot more processing power to the problem it has to decouple from nowadays console / PC (and upcoming tablet/mobile market). As described in recent rumors next box could be a low-mid range PC without a lot of the overhead +healthy optimization. It will run most game and support the upcoming rendition of whatever middle-ware vendors sale easily. It won't be cast aside the market as an valid target (so not powerful enough) as fast as some think.

If you want to make a difference with a lot more processing power, RAM, ROM etc. you need the matching coding and even more importantly content creation efforts. That's basically asking for AAAA games. Honestly I can't see that happening and basing one strategy (and associated (heavy) loss leading model) on what is likely to be a hand few of AAAA titles that still may fail to have the reach of established third party franchises is the suicidal move imho.
I don't think that the industry can go further than AAA games for a long while, any hardware will only run whatever the industry can produce.

 

[Nesh]

ok, let me rephrase... higher performing 3rd party games helped to sell more 360 machines in North America.

But do you really know thats what helped to sell more machines in NA?
Why isnt this true in other territories?

 

[Tap In]

But do you really know thats what helped to sell more machines in NA?
Why isnt this true in other territories?

Becasuse North America has more people to whom console graphics matter?

and online services of course

 

[almighty]

I understand that people use the Wii as an example but everyone that I know off that has one ( Atleast 20+ people ) hardly use it...

Personally I think that although the Wii has sold well I think that most of them are not used very often and just left to sit collecting dust until the next house party.

You also have to think image, 360 and PS3 are games consoles, Wii is now seen as a cheap exercise machine which has no doubt helped it to sell to people that would never normally buy a console.

I personally would love to see the next gens completely ditch all this rubbish gimmicky 'you are the controller' none sense and focus on being what they are... Games consoles.. As I think that half way through this generation things started started to get silly with all this Kinect and motion rubbish.

I miss the Play Station days, All it did was play games and Music CD's.. It was a simple pure gaming machine..

I would love to join the world on the console gamer again but I'm all about image quality and looking at the way things are going with the next gen consoles I'll be sticking with my PC again for the next 5-6 years.

And what I meen by people going with a faster PS4 over 720 is this much difference..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkHoDEh0FWc

How much would you be willing to pay for that difference in graphic quality? $100? $150? $200?