Now, I realize that 90% of the internet is founded on wild rumors and unfounded speculation. At least in terms of the small amount of it that isn't porn. But that's a whole different argument. No, today I want to ask one simple question:
What exactly is it that's wrong with the current generation of consoles?
Oh yeah...
Seriously though. What is it exactly that our current standard of console hardware is lacking so badly? What is it that this mythical next generation will offer?
In the past the differences between the capabilities have been fairly obvious. At each stage we've increased the capacity for bigger games with better graphics. From 8-bit to 16-bit to 3D of varying stages of blockiness the advancement has been fairly clear. Right up to the previous generation. But then things started to become somewhat less clear. The leaps have been getting smaller.
Really the biggest advancement in the current generation over the last one hasn't been gimmicky motion controls, or even graphics. It's been in putting a reasonable sized hard drive in a console and plugging it into the internet so you can download stuff. Certainly the graphics are more complicated, but graphics in and of themselves do not make a game.
And this is, I think, the major problem with this ominpresent yearning for a new set of overpriced hardware. In real terms the only change between the current Xbox and an all new model is going to be an INCREMENTAL increase in graphics. And this will be accompanied by an exponential increase in development costs.
It's a sad fact that the reality of the games industry is that the big titles cost too much to develop. Already, right here, right now in this generation. At a time when developers have had years to come to grips with the systems and should be comfortable building the best games they can in those environments we have a situation where a game can sell MILLIONS of copies and be considered a financial failure. Where whole studios regularly go under simply because their games didn't sell enough millions of copies in the first week. The business model is, put simply, horribly broken. The focus is all on dumping obscene amounts of money on a handful of titles which must be made back instantly. And if it isn't then you're screwed.
Somehow I don't see a new set of hardware doing much to help this situation. Games are already too expensive, both for the developer and consumer, and they're only going to get more so.
Of course one of the big things being rumored is the idea that the next generation of consoles will have some way of locking out used games. If that happens I won't know whether to laugh or cry as it would be the entire industry committing seppuku. The point of used games is, after all, that their CHEAPER. With the release of new console the old hardware will, at least initially also drop in price. Given the choice between a reasonably priced console with a large library of cheap games or an expensive one with a handful of expensive games what do you think will happen? Sure there will always be an amount of hardcore types to support a console initially. There has to be or no machine would ever last long enough to get any decent games. But will they be enough to sustain the whole industry?
As I've said we'll no doubt see some small increase in graphical complexity. But will it really be enough to warrant a whole new system? I mean compare an early xbox game with a late one. Look at say Oblivion, and then look at Skyrim. There's a clear improvement going on there which has nothing to do with hardware. Look at Halo 4. Whilst the game has it's flaws the graphics are pretty stunning.
You know what this needs more of? No, neither do I.
And this is all from the same bit of tech. It's just the developers have had the time to really get to grips with it and learn to make the most of what it can do. The problem with graphics is there's a noticable focus on complexity over aesthetics. Photorealism is one choice out of many for presentation, not the be all and end all of graphical destiny. The problem when everything strives for a realistic look is that everything starts to look the same. This is not actually a good thing.
So, having raved on about graphics for long enough we should then move onto the one thing that's actually important in game: GAMEPLAY.
I.E. Shooting aliens in the face.
What exactly is it that a new machine is going to add? According to Nintendo the answer is superfluous touch screen controls and giant controllers. Honestly this strikes me as a bit gimmicky. Certainly the Wii was a bit different, but the sad fact is that the standard controller design has become standard for a reason, and everything else is a novelty at best.
In terms of size are we going to see any improvement? We already have games like Skyrim clocking in with an approximate playtime of ALL THE HOURS. Whilst I'm sure that you could theoretically make a larger game, should you? Could you imagine the cost of development to actually populate such a world with content? Content that most of your audience may never even see? Even in all those generic shooters where people complain about the truncated campaigns, the reason comes down to time and money a hell of a lot more than it does memory and storage.
New technology may drive innovation, but in this case I honestly can't see that it will. Unless Sony or Microsoft have been secretly developing some truly epoch making new system that mortal minds can barely even conceive I honestly can't see a new generation of consoles doing anything except exacerbating the current ones problems. The main thing holding gaming back isn't the current level of technology. It's a risk averse development environment with an insane and borderline nonsensical business strategy.
Until these problems get fixed no amount of shiny new toys will do anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment