Is console gaming holding back advancement of gaming technology?

[Dr. Doctor]

In my opinion, yes.

Games have to be considerably downscaled optimized to run on "next-gen" console hardware. Both the PS4 and Xbox One can't pump out a steady 1080p 60fps, something that my PC that I built two years ago has no trouble doing.

 

[MrKandy]

It's simple. PC is and will always be the best. Consoles have their pros and cons, just like a PC. Give it time. Eventually consoles will get more competitive against PC.

 

[_Keno_]

I'd rather consoles just disappear and be replaced by gaming computers. If games were FIRST made on computers, instead of being released on them month later, they would probably be way more advanced. I agree with OP.

 

[Cthulhu_MD]

I would have to say no.

The advancement will always continue on, even if consoles lag behind. Advancements are made every so often for gaming. Whether it would be having the newest video card to motion-capture and more, advancements will always be made. PC gaming will always have the upper hand in that compared to the console's limited resources to that of a PC. Every advancement in gaming is made or utilized well because of the PC.

 

[DunnoBro]

I prefer consoles to game on, but as a whole I'd have to say somewhat. But not by fault of consoles themselves, but rather the necessity for them.

Dev tools for each platform, forcing compatibility between platforms, demanding investments into multiple platforms instead of more games (or otherwise dividing the potential market)

Despite all this, gaming PCs are still rather unaffordable and consoles provide a low-investment entry point into gaming. To the point there'd likely not be as large a gaming market as there is without consoles.

 

[DrXenoPootis]

Yes, since most of the CPUs and GPUs in consoles are made by AMD, the technology is rather limited.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'd say consoles won't impede gaming tech. I mean, if you look back in the days of the PS1 and N64, we would have never imagine things like motion control, 3D screens, touch screens, or online play to become reality; those ideas were seen as science fiction as far as we knew. Look at the Oculus Rift, while not a console by the strictest sense (correct me if I'm wrong), it manages to do what the Virtual Boy failed to do. Whether it'll take off in popularity or not remains to be seen, but the point is that gaming is evolving rapidly, and it's just a matter of time before we get things, like holograms not unlike what was seen in the movie, "Her".

 

[Braydon]

If you think pixel count is more important than 3D and a bunch of things that generally increase the functionality then I guess so. How ever the counter argument would be, oh ya, pixel count is not what makes gaming good or bad.

Honestly if your opinion is that losing pixel count in order to get 3D, touch screens, gyroscopes, and portability counts as gaming advancement being held back I don't really see why anyone should bother with your opinion.

@ Claire Diviner
If by just a matter of time until we get holograms, you mean 200-300 years, then ya maybe your right. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the idea of a hologram that it's made out of force fields and light so it can change it's shape and appearance? Also correct me if I'm wrong but nobody has the slightest clue how to do that, holograms are up there with warp travel and creating wormholes. Even if we did manage to make a force field in 50 years the energy required to make it would likely be so high it wouldn't be even remotely viable to use for hundreds of years.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ Claire Diviner
If by just a matter of time until we get holograms, you mean 200-300 years, then ya maybe your right. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the idea of a hologram that it's made out of force fields and light so it can change it's shape and appearance? Also correct me if I'm wrong but nobody has the slightest clue how to do that, holograms are up there with warp travel and creating wormholes. Even if we did manage to make a force field in 50 years the energy required to make it would likely be so high it wouldn't be even remotely viable to use for hundreds of years.

Ever heard of Vocaloid? Ever seen the holograms of Michael Jackson or Tupac? Yeah, while they're not perfect holograms by the strictest definitions, the fact that they even exist shows that we're already dipping our feet into uncharted waters. If technology has shown anything, it's how fast it can evolve in a matter of several decades.

To further my point...

 

[Braydon]

It's a fancy projection not a hologram. You could stick your hand straight through it. Ya we can have projections today but actually making a hologram which physically occupies space is an entirely different matter.

 

[ShortcutButton]

PC Gaming is the "Master Race" for single-player and online campaigns; it's obvious why.

Console gaming has the homefield advantage for local multiplayer; connecting PCs locally is terrible.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It's a fancy projection not a hologram. You could stick your hand straight through it. Ya we can have projections today but actually making a hologram which physically occupies space is an entirely different matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you implying that by "physically occupying space", it must be able to be physically touched, or that it has to be a pure 3D image? If the former, then you need to brush up on you holography. The links below are good places to start.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

My second question to you is why do you believe holographic images in video games - console or otherwise - would be impossible in our lifetime? Given how rapidly technology is evolving (I've always joked about being able to search the web on our wrists, and now there's a piece of technology that does just that), why doubt holography being a thing in our lifetime?

In case you wanted proof of the smartwatch:
http://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/accessories/smartwatch/

 

[Maven89]

Gaming PC's are way more expensive then consoles, most people can't afford one or just don't want to spend the money. If there was never anything but computer games then the video game industry would have never picked off and you'd never have the money to afford to see something like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed on your computer.

You also have to understand that the whole PC thing is going out of date, smartphones replace most of the internet, consoles most of the video games/movies. Tablets are replacing them even more.

Plus I'm not even sure what outcome you'd hope for, video games would come out with way better graphics? Probably not, because if it was profitable to release a video game with that much graphics as a PC exclusive don't you think someone would have tried to fill that niche? The closest was Crysis, where after the first game came out the developers said they'd never do a PC exclusive again because of how much more money they'd make on consoles. If you removed consoles then kiss most video game companies goodbye, and since removing consoles would cripple the industry, they are not holding video games back but are advancing them.

 

[Lichi]

No, consoles don't hold back gaming advancement in general. But it is true, that consoles harshly limit what games can look like if developers want to create similar experiences for all systems.

It is just a fact that even the current, so called 'next gen' consoles can not deliver the same graphical fidelity a pc can. So games which are multiplatform release for console and pc usually are programmed for console, and then ported to pc, which more often than not makes the game look not as good as it might.
But there are always games that will still push even modern gaming hardware to its limits, so it would be unfair to say that consoles slow down progression in total. Even with consoles being the big market developers tend to aim for, there will be the occasional Crysis, Witcher 3 or whatever that makes use of modern pc hardware.

Furthermore, it is true that graphics are not what makes a video game good. But you must not neglect it in total. A good game can very well profit from better graphics, if the design allows for it.

---

On a side note, I think it's quite sad how firmly people believe that pc gaming is unreasonably expensive compared to console gaming. Yes, a high end gaming pc can cost you almost any amount of $ you can imagine, but it is very much possible to build a pc that runs todays games just as 'well' as any console does for 400-500$, not including the OS. So even if you had to buy a new OS, you'd be at 600$ at most, and comparing that to a 400$ console, this is not off the limits of managable.
So far, yes, a gaming pc will have a somewhat higer inital price, but as a gamer you maybe don't just need the machine itself, but also games. Console games are more expensive than their pc counterparts, and there's no denying it.
Even looking at brand new releases, e.g. Evolve, you spend about 40% more for the same game if you want the console version (amazon.de prices: 59,99€ for PS4 / XBOX1<> 42,29€ PC), so with 10 full price titles bought, you will actually have spent less money with pc gaming. And this does not even count in sales on digital distributors like steam, which happen all the time.

Where's the catch? You cannot be lazy if you want a gaming pc for that price. You'll have to invest time to look up the components that give you best value for their respective prices, you gotta put them together yourself and have an eye on how good they work together and you'll have to make the system work. Building a low price pc that still has some power to it does need some understanding of what you are doing, and buying a complete package in your local store will not give you best value.

---

Seizing the idea that connecting pcs locally is terrible: I guess connecting every pc to a single router via ethernet is asked too much? Any decent router will establish a working network in between a number of Windows 7 or newer systems within seconds.

---

If consoles would have never existed, it is more likely that then there'd have been emerged more pc developers then than just having a shortage.

 

[Braydon]

@ Claire Diviner
Well you were talking about stuff that seems like science fiction, I was kinda thinking more about holograms as projected in science fiction. How star trek and whatnot will have solid holograms.

Just as an image though? Don't see much a point, we already have 3D on the 3Ds without that and it seems it would be too light sensitive. Maybe in like 50 years home consoles will project an image but I don't think portable systems will have them because of the unpredictable light, plus if the projector shakes...

Anyway we already have things you can wear on your eyes that make it look 3D inside, and I think that will probably win out as it's already doing decent.

 

[ansossy]

Consoles will die off. The computer has been 10 years ahead of consoles ever since the dawn of the late 90s Windows. Apple sets Computer Technology behind just as consoles do. Computers have done everything consoles do and it's no wonder why computer games do so much better than console games. A simple cheap game like Five Night's at Freddy's is racking up hundreds of thousands in dollars and Minecraft racks up millions. It's favorable for development and accessible by anyone as well as being in every household in America, Western Europe, East Asia, and Australia.

 

[Lichi]

Consoles will die off. The computer has been 10 years ahead of consoles ever since the dawn of the late 90s Windows. Apple sets Computer Technology behind just as consoles do. Computers have done everything consoles do and it's no wonder why computer games do so much better than console games. A simple cheap game like Five Night's at Freddy's is racking up hundreds of thousands in dollars and Minecraft racks up millions. It's favorable for development and accessible by anyone as well as being in every household in America, Western Europe, East Asia, and Australia.

Console games can be developed knowing the exact same hardware capabilites and properties are the same for every user of a certain console. This makes things easier than on PC, where almost any user has a unique configuration.
Additionally, the new consoles are more likely using more or less the same architecture as the PC does (e.g. PS4 also using x86).

 

[adumbrodeus]

This discussion needs to define it's terms, what is "holding back?", almost everything here is fluff pieces because of how poorly defined the discussion is.

Gaming PC's are way more expensive then consoles, most people can't afford one or just don't want to spend the money. If there was never anything but computer games then the video game industry would have never picked off and you'd never have the money to afford to see something like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed on your computer.

This is incorrect, economically speaking you can build a PC which outperforms modern consoles for significantly less cost while retaining modularity. Add to that the fact that PC games themselves can be purchased for a lot less due to digitial distribution having a much freer hand in pricing, as well as a much larger f2p market and free market and PC gaming is much less expensive. I myself built a PC that has similar performance to a ps4 for about $240 (no Microsoft tax though).

Of course this means building your own pc, which while not as difficult as you would think, generally conveys a reality of PC gaming, the dichotomy between console gaming and PC gaming isn't price versus performance, it's price versus convenience.

That said, people are more likely to have a PC that they use for work which tends to drive a lot of the f2p and indy gaming market, so that's also relevant to the discussion.

You also have to understand that the whole PC thing is going out of date, smartphones replace most of the internet, consoles most of the video games/movies. Tablets are replacing them even more.

Not really, league of legends remains the largest game on the planet and individually has a larger estimated playerbase the ps4's estimated number of units sold. Steam has more then a 100 million accounts and of those accounts 9 million are concurrently active at any given time as of march of this year. Consoles used to be replacing PCs for gaming, but this trend ultimately ended because users of WoW filtered into the larger PC games market and the rise of LoL and steam.

 

[HvEVIL]

Console games can be developed knowing the exact same hardware capabilites and properties are the same for every user of a certain console. This makes things easier than on PC, where almost any user has a unique configuration.
Additionally, the new consoles are more likely using more or less the same architecture as the PC does (e.g. PS4 also using x86).

This man makes some valid-ass points. PC game makers need to accomodate all those lower end PCs, forcing them to have lower quality settings that will allow those lower end computers to run the game at a significant decrease in quality. Then they need to test the game on a ridiculous number of machines, whereas on consoles they just have to test the game on one device.