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

[function]

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.

After how many years does a gimmick sop being a gimmick? And I could have sworn Kinect Sports was a game ...

All controllers are motion controllers (all the ones people commonly think of anyway). Kinect is great because it opens up the scope of input so massively - from face shape to tone of voice to posture to movement to more.

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.

On the PC you buy a fast graphics card and throw its power excesses at improving IQ. No matter how much power a console has it will never be used in such a way. You should probably stick with the PC, forever.

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?

There probably won't be that kind of difference, partly because both will have similarly capable shaders (so just run at a lower resolution) and partly because Sony aren't going to be building a beast of a console either.

 

[almighty]

On the PC you buy a fast graphics card and throw its power excesses at improving IQ. No matter how much power a console has it will never be used in such a way. You should probably stick with the PC, forever.

Depends on the game, Most games hardly take a hit when running Anti-Aliasing and 16xAF texture filtering has been pretty much 'free' on PC for years.

 

[function]

Depends on the game, Most games hardly take a hit when running Anti-Aliasing and 16xAF texture filtering has been pretty much 'free' on PC for years.

Ever wonder why that is?

 

[Acert93]

Yes, graphcis are everything, that's why Wii didn't sell at all last gen.. oh wait

If these numbers are correct:

Wii – 37,624,494
Xbox 360 – 30,934,373
PlayStation 3 – 19,041,921

It would be just as facetious to make a reverse statement.

Once you ignore Japanese Wii sales (as Japanese gaming habits are quite distinct at this point in time) the importance of these higher performing consoles comes more into focus.

Graphics aren't everything... but there **must be a reason to upgrade.**

If some of these rumors materialize I have a hard time seeing MS winning my gaming dollars. And I wouldn't underestimate the effect of early adopters and social media. A 15% disparity between top end competitors isn't the end of the world but if MS or Sony decide to cheap out compared to the competitor it could be ugly.

"Hey investors, we lose nothing per console... but, uhhh, we also are getting slaughtered 3:1 in unit sales, the hardcore early adopters have a much larger consumption on the competing device which is harming our royalties, and our Metacritic and monthly NPD for software is giving us monthly bad press."

It is odd as this gen we saw how much bad press Sony got for lackluster 3rd party titles in regards to features and graphics/performance early in the cycle. If I were MS I surely would NOT want to sit on that side of the fence.

And as much as I like Kinect I see no reason to upgrade to a platform which my current Xbox could currently do. That is the same reason I skipped the Wii. I liked my GCN but outside waggle I don't see how the experience was any different.

 

[(((interference)))]

Yeah, I don't like the idea of a relatively weak Xbox 720 which Sony can just come along and steamroll by releasing a higher spec PS4 a year later.

IMO one of the best things about this console generation was the fact that both HD consoles were close to identical in terms of performance.

 

[Brad Grenz]

What don't you like about it? What do you see as beneficial to having the core audience spread across two comparable platforms? I bet the developers and publishers would love to go back to the days when the vast majority of their target market was on a single system. Personally, I'd prefer a clearcut performance and audience leader, especially if it gets me Sony first party games on the same system where all my multi-player friends are.

 

[Acert93]

Those who really care about graphics use PC, or live in a barrell where they haven't ever seen PC graphics.
The jaggies on console games, with or without any AA methods they might use, are just horrendous

I care about graphics and I don't PC game (sans indie titles) hence your statement is false

There are all sorts of degrees of 'graphics' and one very important once is performance and visual trade offs.

Specifically if your game, Leet Shooter 2012, is designed technically and artistically to have X, Y, and Z feature at 30Hz but one platform has horrible V-sync issues and averages 27Hz and also has to drop feature Z then that is an issue.

There are a lot of other issues why not all consumers who appreciate pretty graphics and stable performance are not on a PC but to assume, quite incorrectly, that that those who "really care" about graphics are on a PC is absurd.

That is like saying anyone who really care about speed owns a Ferrari, Lambo, or the like. It just isn't a very well thought out statement and ignores the large amount of sales of lower classed sports cars.

Ps- Shifty, the car syllogism fits nicely here. But if you protest pick whatever widget you want. PC graphics cards also tend to fall into these sorts of categories... I mean, why else don't all those PC gamers who are the only ones who REALLY care about graphics buying anything but 580s and 7970s?

 

[(((interference)))]

What don't you like about it? What do you see as beneficial to having the core audience spread across two comparable platforms? .

Mainly, so that console exclusives don't get gipped by being on a weaker platform. I want all the continuing franchises to look good next gen, not see like Uncharted 4 and KZ4 etc look twice as good as Gears of War 4 or Halo 5.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I suppose they'll just have to start leaning on their superior artistry like Nintendo has done with the Wii!

But, yeah, it'll be a bummer if, after cultivating a hardcore audience for two generations, MS turns their back on those fans in favor of untapped casual markets.

 

[BadTB25]

What don't you like about it? What do you see as beneficial to having the core audience spread across two comparable platforms? I bet the developers and publishers would love to go back to the days when the vast majority of their target market was on a single system. Personally, I'd prefer a clearcut performance and audience leader, especially if it gets me Sony first party games on the same system where all my multi-player friends are.

I'd like at least 2 platforms next generation. This generation, MS and Sony (and to a lesser extent Nintendo) continually attempted to 1up each other.

A strong healthy competitive environment helps to ensure better tech and services. Even if it weren't for some strong competition, next generation could be nothing but a minor upgrade because they know they have you by the balls with nowhere else to go besides the expensive PC upgrade for your home gaming fix. I'd gladly pay the price for 2 systems to ensure that the surviving companies kept their knives sharp for future battles.

 

[(((interference)))]

But, yeah, it'll be a bummer if, after cultivating a hardcore audience for two generations, MS turns their back on those fans in favor of untapped casual markets.

Exactly, the whole reason I went from my Playsation to the original Xbox was because it was the most powerful console available. It'd be a shame to see MS turn their back on their heritage.

 

[BadTB25]

I don't get why some think MS won't be going high end to be at least as powerful as the PS4 next gen (other than web rumors). The Xbox was more powerful in many ways than the PS2 and the X360 was certainly competitive against the later launched PS3.

If anything, they are in a better position than Sony to risk a higher spec system with other avenues of revenue that are currently profitable. I'm not saying that this would be the case, but judging their recent history, it would be folly to underestimate them. My hope is for 2 very powerful systems with them fighting (or others, but I'd prefer MS/Sony) fighting it out for many years to come.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Well, everyone assumed they'd be going high powered until these rumors suggesting a modest GPU and a SoC started cropping up. Combined with their current success with Kinect it's not hard to envision them "pulling a Wii", emphasizing profitability on hardware and expecting Kinect to carry the day.

 

[patsu]

It is not so useful to look at existing or past consoles to determine how important graphics was/is in the purchase decision. Those consoles are total package. Some may subconsciously prefer another brand because they were sick of one, or perhaps they prefer the overall 360 experiences and cheaper price, or may be they love Sony's or Nintendo's first parties output, etc.

A clean room comparison like PS3 vs (PS3 + more power and memory) is also academic. The added power will provide consistently higher framerate, better IQ, faster/easier development, pristine 3D, or high quality local co-op, etc. for the average games, but the vendors may not have enough $$$ for marketing or exclusive titles with amazing production value.

Personally, I don't think I can tell vendors how much graphics weigh in my purchase decision until I have played with the product. Bullet point surveys and relating old stories are not so reliable. However, if the vendors have very specific ideas about where they want to go, I think that's often more important. Since they can most likely invest the resources in the right way to achieve the desired outcome.

That is why people like Steve Jobs, and to a certain extent Kutaragi's craziness, and Phil Harrison's Game 3.0 presentation were memorable. Wii, Kinect, and Siri also ignited people's imagination because they are slightly far out in their times.

 

[specwarGP2]

If 720 has a 6670 and PS3 has something like a GTX580, then Sony can easily ask for $100 more and gamers will happily pay. People already pay a premium for PS3 and the performance advantage is maybe just a little bit better than 360.

$100 is not a lot these days...

 

[AlphaWolf]

People already pay a premium for PS3 and the performance advantage is maybe just a little bit better than 360.

um... what?

 

[function]

PS3 is still in the hole that hardware costs dug for it, and the 360 is only in such good shape now because of the Kinect effect and Live. Why would either MS or Sony want to repeat the mess of the first few years of this generation?

Sales of the enormous, expensive, early PS3s were not good and the first 360s were appallingly unfriendly machines. Based on the noise, vibration and sheer heat (especially underneath and in the disk tray) I decided to un-buy my 360 until I could be guaranteed a Falcon. Suggesting that even more money could have been spent on the cooling and that an even bigger case could have allowed for even more/bigger fans is to miss the point IMO.

Oh yeah, and an actively cooled power brick that's as big as a lunch box. God damn. you can't even just stick it on the floor or behind the telly and just forget about it because it'll slowly suck in dust and kill itself.

um... what?

Performance as seen through brand goggles. Never fails to keep the party going!

 

[Nesh]

If 720 has a 6670 and PS3 has something like a GTX580, then Sony can easily ask for $100 more and gamers will happily pay. People already pay a premium for PS3 and the performance advantage is maybe just a little bit better than 360.

$100 is not a lot these days...

People used to pay a premium in the earlier days when they were expecting the "hidden" performance to reveal itself. But that premium also included Blu Ray functionality which was probably the main culprit of the high price. Not a better GPU or some space age CPU that output 2x the visual fidelity.
They arent paying for the an expected "performance advantage" anymore, because people got used to the notion that they are pretty close in performance.
In addition prices are very close too. I was checking the euro prices yesterday and they are very competitive with the PS3 probably seeming like a better value for money considering that it also plays Blu Ray movies while the 360 cant

PS3 320GB+Move starter pack=295 Euro
Slim XB360 250GB + Kinect Bundle=380 Euro
Slim XB360 4GB + Kinect Bundle=324 Euro

PS3 Slim 320GB + Uncharted 3=295 Euro
PS3 Slim 320GB + Resistance 3=295 Euro
PS3 Slim 320GB + Infamous 2=295 Euro
XB360 250GB Gears of War 3 Bundle=304 Euro
XB360 250GB Forza Motorsport 4=315 Euro
XB360 250GB Halo Reach Bundle=304 Euro

PS3 Slim 160GB=245 Euro
Slim XB360 4GB=210 Euro

If Sony couldnt drop the price to competitive level it would have been in deep shit because the better performance is not there unless you count the extreme rare not-like-for-like cases like Uncharted and God of War which are the only examples that give that impression.

 

[TheChefO]

Well, everyone assumed they'd be going high powered until these rumors suggesting a modest GPU and a SoC started cropping up. Combined with their current success with Kinect it's not hard to envision them "pulling a Wii", emphasizing profitability on hardware and expecting Kinect to carry the day.

The problem with such an arrangement is that it ignores the software sales of Wii and Kinect vs traditional HD games.

While those sales do lead directly to royalty cuts for the software at hand, the other big thing such an approach would cut is actual time that people turn on the device and use it.

Relying solely on the gimmick end as Wii did relegated it to a dust collector for most people and many would argue Kinect is on the same path.

So if that (kinect2.0) is the angle that they are hoping will lure in the masses, I believe they will be sorely mistaken and not only sales of games will take a hit. Sales of movies, games, tv-shows, music, XBL subs, and potential ad revenue ALL would take a hit from going the wii route.

Especially if there is an alternate which DOESN'T go the Wii route.

But again, it all depends on what their corp goals are ... a slightly improved xb360+ bundled with kinect2.0 at $300 by the end of the year will sell. It will generate a significant userbase rather quickly. And then as soon as someone comes out with a real nextgen machine, it will be Dreamcasted. MS doesn't have the brand strength yet to pull off something as bold as this approach. Graphics matter, and especially when one's brand has been built on the premise.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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?

That much difference is highly unlikely. XB's hardware was a year and a half older at a point when graphics hardware was evolving at a massive rate, while the hardware itself was way more expensive and only sold at its price because MS were willing to take a massive loss. If their business hadn't been so aggressive, the price would probably have been more like $300 for a PS2 and $500 for an XBox. The only way you could get such differences now is for one of the console companies to be really cheap and put in budget hardware. But even then the differences likely won't be so noticeable. Lower resolution textures and shadow maps, a few less dynamic lights...but the general feel will be the same and not so obvious as that example where the underlying tech was different.