@Pizzamorg With regards to fps and resolution...tbh in my limited time with these systems I've not felt that they're particular underpowered, and I suspect most consumers won't be bothered by the things you mentioned. Those that are would gravitate to PC anyway.
As for pricing? PS5 in particular has a bothersome pricing scheme, yes. £70 for a game day-one --- when a game is likely at its worst without patches, and when the price is likely to drop very soon --- is a bit of a bummer. But personally I don't know of anyone who's paying full price for these releases. Still, not a good look, and it makes you wonder why Sony would suffer the bad PR just to get some extra cash out of the few willing to pay full-price. As for paying for PS5 upgrades? It's better than buying a whole new copy of the game at least, which console gamers have historically had to do in the past.
To address your broader opinion though, i.e., "this console generation (X/PS5) feels like a failure already"...my gut feeling is yes, tbh. The only game I've played this gen that has truly justified the new hardware is Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, and that's felt lost in all of the stellar experiences I've had on the 6-year-old hardware that is the Switch.
That said, PS4 and XBox One got off to a very slow start, so I'm not going to write off PS5 and Xbox Series just yet. But I certainly think we're getting past the point of massive generational leaps, and, with regards to Xbox and Playstation in particular, I think these console manufacturers will really have to do a lot to convince me to invest into their systems in the future.
@Pizzamorg With regards to fps and resolution...tbh in my limited time with these systems I've not felt that they're particular underpowered, and I suspect most consumers won't be bothered by the things you mentioned. Those that are would gravitate to PC anyway.
As for pricing? PS5 in particular has a bothersome pricing scheme, yes. £70 for a game day-one --- when a game is likely at its worst without patches, and when the price is likely to drop very soon --- is a bit of a bummer. But personally I don't know of anyone who's paying full price for these releases. Still, not a good look, and it makes you wonder why Sony would suffer the bad PR just to get some extra cash out of the few willing to pay full-price. As for paying for PS5 upgrades? It's better than buying a whole new copy of the game at least, which console gamers have historically had to do in the past.
To address your broader opinion though, i.e., "this console generation (X/PS5) feels like a failure already"...my gut feeling is yes, tbh. The only game I've played this gen that has truly justified the new hardware is Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, and that's felt lost in all of the stellar experiences I've had on the 6-year-old hardware that is the Switch.
That said, PS4 and XBox One got off to a very slow start, so I'm not going to write off PS5 and Xbox Series just yet. But I certainly think we're getting past the point of massive generational leaps, and, with regards to Xbox and Playstation in particular, I think these console manufacturers will really have to do a lot to convince me to invest into their systems in the future.
Well that is why I made it clear it was their promises, whether the average consumer cares or not, the X and PS5 were both sold on their power to consumers, and what that would mean for gaming going forwards. But those promises have just not come true. And even now, the promise of this extra price jump on a PS5/X copy of a game is that you are getting the truly next gen version of that experience, but as far as I can tell next gen performance is very close to what you got from a PS4 pro, which was already being lapped by midrange PCs that were only slightly more expensive up front, and considerably cheaper long term as no one pays 70 quid for a game on PC.
And like you say, you have to wonder what this means long term. I feel like the "death of the console" has been talked about for a while, and I'm not sure if that will ever be true. But if the returns are so minuscule on these new consoles and you're being charmed a premium for it, I just wonder how many people will still be left in a generation or two from now.
As much as people talk about ray tracing this or not for me the real blessing this gen is load times are so much quicker even though there are still a few games that haven't taken up the feature like they could have. I think it was Horizon Forbidden West that had to put the load times back in just so people could read the hints shown during it or something like that.
I don't think the issue with this gen being a flop or whatever you want to call it is with the hardware but with games taking so much longer to make so we aren't getting ones that take full advantage of the hardware. Someone posted an article in the forum somewhere about how games starting development now will have to aim for next gen because of how it will take to make.
In any case meh, Bethesda are still gonna release games on PC so that's Doom sorted for me and Sony are dipping their toes in PC too I'm not fussed with what they are upto anymore.
@jump I definitely appreciate the load times myself, but PC gamers have been enjoying SSD load times for years.
I agree about the dev cycles --- some games are getting a bit too ambitious, and they inevitably either fall flat or take an age to come out (I'm still in disbelief that we're getting Final Fantasy XVI this year after Square-Enix's notoriety on that front). And of course monetization plays a role there as well.
I will say things like quick resume are rad new features, but I don't think quick resume or features like it justify a new console generation. Especially as like others have said, SSDs have existed on PCs forever, and if you want a 1080p, 60 fps targeting machine with an SSD, you can probably get a PC at a comparable price to a PS5 and it be way cheaper long term as you aren't trapped in Sony's expensive ecosystem (slightly different for Xbox, as at least you have Gamepass).
As someone who can't afford PC gaming, I see nothing really wrong with this gen. All I really care about is being able to play good games that look good, and PS5 is enough for that, for half the price of what it would cost me to get a PC that could run those games. Another issue with PC are PC ports of console games, especially Square Enix games, are notorious for being bad.
As for games, I generally just wait for a sale, unless the game is good enough to warrant me wanting to buy it day 1. Like, the only game I really plan on purchasing day 1 is Final Fantasy XVI. Other than that, I'd rather wait until the games go on sale.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
I don't see PC gaming as being particularly expensive myself. Sure, the sky is the limit if you constantly want the latest and greatest of everything, but it's not like you have to. Games will still run well on comparatively modest hardware.
A quick look at the Steam survey suggests that a typical 2023 gaming PC would have a GTX 1650, a six core CPU, 16GB RAM, and less than a terabyte of storage. A setup like that could easily be put together for less than the price of a PS5. It wouldn't perform as well, but you'd struggle to find many modern games that wouldn't run on it at all.
The other thing about PC games is that they're really cheap, often free. The Epic Store has free games every month. GamePass for PC costs next to nothing, especially if you farm Microsoft points and convert memberships; you could get three years worth for about $150. The Humble Bundle has regular packages on sale often for as little as a dollar and the discounts in Steam sales are way deeper than you get on consoles.
The things you don't get are the exclusive games, the ease of use and the access to Sony's ecosystem. They're going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people but I don't think price is one at all.
@Matt_Barber
I don't want freebies and PC gaming as my role model. I don't like that way of playing video games.
I prefer old school style video games consoles / handhelds with disc or cartridge to play.
I'm dinosaur for this case.
@Matt_Barber It really isn't the same though. Most people who buy games buy them periodically, and just getting ahold of parts for a PC to play these games is sometimes more expensive than the consoles that they're made for. Like, I can afford a 60 dollar game every now and then, but I can't afford to pay for a whole gaming rig to play most games on high graphics, and I definitely can't afford to buy the parts needed to upgrade my own gaming rig.
"It is fate. Many have tried, yet none have ever managed to escape it's flow."
Console owners: PC gaming is too expensive.
Also console owners: I buy fifty games a year on physical media.
Lol, it really is like talking to a wall, ain't it. There is so much myth making and misinformation surrounding PC gaming and no matter how much you debunk it, they just move the goal posts again.
Playing some Apex this afternoon got me thinking, I really hate the whole "adding other modes is bad because it splits the playerbase" excuse people make when new modes get added to an online game. Like, when did having options to play other modes become a bad thing?
Call me old, but I do not recall complaints about having other modes to play in an online games of the past. Counter-Strike had two modes, no complaints there. Quake III Arena had four modes, no complaints there either. Medal of Honor had four modes, no one complained. Unreal Tournament had a ton of modes, no one complained.
Yet, in recent years, anytime an online multiplayer game gets a new mode, you have people who complain about the playerbase becoming split. Good example, I enjoyed Arenas in Apex, it's now gone because people complained about it splitting the playerbase. It's been replaced with Team Deathmatch, which is cool, I like a good old fashioned Deathmatch. I'm going to miss the mode. Again, I'm going to sound old, back when I played Quake III, Medal of Honor, or Unreal, people played the modes they liked. I don't recall ever seeing a Medal of Honor player complaining that having an objective based mode "splitting the playerbase."
My personal guess is battle royale is a fad, so those who like battle royale are afraid they'll lose players if other modes get added. Yet, looking at it, having Team Deathmatch in Apex could bring in new players who don't even want to play the battle royale mode. Arenas did this to Apex too. This is coming from a guy who enjoys Apex's BR mode occasionally.
Just something that's been on my mind. I really don't see how having optional modes is a bad thing, especially when it helps bring in more players who wouldn't play a game where the main mode is battle royale. Calling this unpopular because "it splits the playerbase" is really a popular opinion within the online gaming space in recent years.
Apologies if this got a bit ranty, I just really don't like the "splits the playerbase" argument everytime an online multiplayer game gets a new mode.
Edit: fixed a typo on the second paragraph I did not pick up on while typing.
Natsumon and Fashion Dreamer are more interesting upcoming Switch games for me than the new zelda game.
I quickly stop watching the Direct once I saw something from the Direct that I knew it will be new zelda game trailer.
I don't care, it was very uninteresting game for me.
@Eagly, Eh, if it's like Jedi Fallen Order, it's structure is going to be more in line with a "Metroidvania" than what I'd like to see from Zelda (it's worlds are largely a series of intricately intertwined "hallways" that you can further explore with the more abilities you unlock).
I agree that I'd like to see some sort of more "focused" areas in Zelda (like bespoke dungeons), but it should still feature some sort of open area to explore & play around in-between the more linear segments.
That said I'm definitely going to be getting both games!
Currently Playing:
Switch - Blade Strangers
PS4 - Kingdom Hearts III, Tetris Effect (VR)
I mean, that's a pretty reasonable opinion, in that its pretty clear Souls-like games replaced Zelda-like games, at least for 3D gaming. Like it stands out that Dark Souls came out around the same time as Skyward Sword and the last major Zelda-like (barring me having not played the new God of Wars games to know how Zelda-y it is) was Darksiders 2, just a year later.
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 11,261 to 11,280 of 12,938
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic