EA Asks: Do We Need Another Console Generation?

[poxeniummm]

My first and last gaming console was a Terminator II box, an illegal chinese copy of Nintendo's console which plays NES. After it broke, I switched to PC gaming and never looked back. In my opinion gaming consoles should evolve into fully functional computers, supporting any operating system and computer parts/accessories.

 

[bildo123]

Nope; he's right. SImply let all consoles die and let the PC do the rest! These white-shoe boys of EA aren't so stupid after all!

 

[Guest]

All I want is a new PS4 to work like a Google TV and to run android with access to the regular android market as well as a Playstation approved market.

 

[josejones]

"I don't see consumers right now banging on the walls for a new platform"
- EA chief executive officer John Riccitiello

Then you're not paying attention!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the EA chief executive officer John Riccitiello thinks that consoles have hit their peak and that people are "happy" with that, then, guess what games I will be staying away from ....... EA.

Part of the point is to PUSH newer technology and to have fun doing it by reaping the benefits of higher quality, more fun games, as well as more functionality such as Kinect and movies etc.

It sounds to me like John Riccitiello needs to go and find a different job as he has lost interest in gaming. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

 

[Zeh]

Consoles are in a bad position:
If they don't upgrade, developers might feel the pressure from pc gamers and develop games for PC first, and only then port it to consoles tuning it down. It will also degrade console's image as "gaming platform", because it is so old.
If they do, they might angry conservative developers and customers, which think a console is like a tv - you only upgrade it once every 10 years or so.

 

[Anomalyx]

Sigh... there should be a requirement of at least a basic understanding of the differences between console and PC gaming before anyone posts a comparison. Yes, if you tried to run a PC game on the same grade of hardware that a PS3/360 has, it would suck. PS3 only has 256 MB of RAM! Try even running Windows with that. Consoles get away with it because they can develop the graphics to directly interface with the graphics cards, since they don't have to worry about everyone having a different card model. For PC gaming, they have to go through the DirectX interface for absolutely everything, which slows it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. Not to say DirectX is bad, but it's the price paid for having the choice between hundreds of different graphics cards to choose from.

Summary: yes, the raw hardware in consoles is very old, but with the way console games can be developed, it's more than they'll ever need.

Obligatory car analogy:
Consoles are a 1990 Honda Accord. Still goes strong, gets you around as quickly as you need.
PCs are a Dodge Ram 3500, with 650 ft-lbs of torque, towing that 2-ton trailer we call an operating system.
They both get where they need to go, and each just as fast as the other. The difference is that one is high powered and the other is just-right powered. Yet their speed is the same.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]The 360 does not have crappy graphics. It has outstanding DirectX 9 graphics. YOu can't compare a DX9 machine to current DX11 PC hardware.

First-party exclusive console games generally are amazing and beautiful on the consoles, because they are built for the specific consoles.[/citation]

Load of BS. You think I never saw a console? No game there can compare to a PC in terms of graphics.

But that's not even the point... some games are great without edge-cutting graphics, yet consoles STILL slow down innovation: for example, instead of making the storyline and gameplay better, they add Kinect to squeeze out some more cash from the 360... this is garbage. What's worse is that there're people who justify this.

[citation][nom]bigcatface[/nom]boohoo! the obvious solution for moany PC users is to not compulsively buy every iteration of hardware. don't spend thousands on a PC that you will never use![/citation]

Cool story bro. Normally, it's enough to upgrade once in 3-4 years. If you choose to do it more often, that's YOUR problem... don't assume all PC users are that stupid.

 

[southernshark]

EA is a crap company.

 

[Nick_C]

A lot of consumers play console games because of:

a) Probably don't need to upgrade the hardware to play the latest and greatest (i.e. CPU / GPU intensive) PC game;

b) No individual driver updates to optimise performance of the hardware / operating system configuration;

c) Put disk in drive, click play....

Not every gamer has access to the kind of funds required to keep a gaming PC up to date

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]Sigh... there should be a requirement of at least a basic understanding of the differences between console and PC gaming before anyone posts a comparison. Yes, if you tried to run a PC game on the same grade of hardware that a PS3/360 has, it would suck. PS3 only has 256 MB of RAM! Try even running Windows with that. Consoles get away with it because they can develop the graphics to directly interface with the graphics cards, since they don't have to worry about everyone having a different card model. For PC gaming, they have to go through the DirectX interface for absolutely everything, which slows it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. Not to say DirectX is bad, but it's the price paid for having the choice between hundreds of different graphics cards to choose from.Summary: yes, the raw hardware in consoles is very old, but with the way console games can be developed, it's more than they'll ever need.[/citation]

That's true; but explain one thing, then: Why do the graphics still suck and all games have to be in 720p to provide some playable fps? Why is that when I compare Mass Effect 2 for the PC and for the 360, the former looks like it's a totally different, far superior game? (Hell, it is!)

Because, despite the direct interaction with the hardware, the hardware limit HAS been reached, no matter what lies they spread. They can talk about how it has not been reached and keep providing crappy graphics, or they can supply us with a new generation of these pathetic excuses for a gaming platform and stop embarrassing themselves even more.

 

[Yuka]

Yeah, forget consoles and improve PCs more.

Cheers!

 

[Guest]

Total agree with TheGuardian. I don't think GTA IV was even rendered in 720p on PS3 (slightly under that). When the next 3 or 4 generations of games can play at 1920 x 1080 at 120fps with 4x AA and 4x AF, then we can say that the hardware is good enough.

This guy must not have tried Mass Effect 2 or Crysis 2 at 1920 x 1200 with all the bells and whistles turned up. Glorious. What a stunning idea – some of us actually like excellent graphics.

Operating a PC is a little more costly, but I need one anyway; and to think that an extra $200 will get me quite far in the gaming world is awfully enticing.

 

[gm0n3y]

On the one hand, it would be nice if they updated the consoles so that as a PC gamer I could get better quality ports. But on the other hand, I really want them to stay with the current hardware so that gamers and developers will start moving back to the PC and we'll start getting higher quality games built for 'real gamers' not just crappy console ports.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]Nick_C[/nom]A lot of consumers play console games because of:a) Probably don't need to upgrade the hardware to play the latest and greatest (i.e. CPU / GPU intensive) PC game;b) No individual driver updates to optimise performance of the hardware / operating system configuration;c) Put disk in drive, click play....Not every gamer has access to the kind of funds required to keep a gaming PC up to date[/citation]

You've been terribly misinformed.

1) You don't need to upgrade every two months. In fact, you can get a PC that will serve you for 3 years and will deliver much superior gaming experience. Yeah, it'll cost more, for the same reason a sports car costs more than a family van. Also, if you're mad on the idea of saving money, you can get a gaming PC for as low as $400 and it'll still be better than any console... Hell, if I ask around, I'll probably find enough mobos and CPUs/GPUs for FREE to build a few PCs each if which will be better than consoles in gaming!

2) Updating drivers... let me just say my grandma could do it. Too simple, plus you don't even need to do it that often.

3) Launch Steam (or whatever the hell you're using), click Play. Not even a disk needed.

4) Not to mention PCs can do a million of other things consoles can't...

5) We have a mouse and therefore can aim properly

 

[sviola]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]From one side, no. From the other side, if we are ever to hope that the game developers will get their heads out of their a$$es and start developing games with better graphics, gameplay and storyline than the current stuff we get, we need something more powerful than these obsolete garbages. So maybe we do, after all. It is painful to see great games delayed to implement unnecessary console BS (Kinect in ME3) or being dumbed down graphically (again, ME series). Consoles were great long time ago, when they could give any PC, save the most powerful, a run for their money. That era has come to an end and the next generation of consoles won't manage to keep up with desktop PCs anymore.[/citation]

This is an EA executive. They don't care about storyline, gameplay and graphics. All they care is about milking franchises every year, with little changes (like updated teams).

 

[bvsbutthd101]

they say developers haven't utilized the hardware but my newer xbox 360 lags little bit on games like madden 12 and COD black ops zombies (call of the dead). If anything they definitely need a upgrade. Plus im sick of the crappy console ports the PC's.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]sviola[/nom]This is an EA executive. They don't care about storyline, gameplay and graphics. All they care is about milking franchises every year, with little changes (like updated teams).[/citation]

Lol, I know. Let's just hope they won't ruin BF3 and ME3, after that they can burn in hell...

 

[kriswone]

The sad part is even when these "New" console come out, they will still be dated technology, inadvertently similar to everything that Apple pumps out.

EA can keep their games, I DL'd the Demo for Madden 12, Played 2 quarters, and then un-installed it. JUNK.

And if EA thinks I'm gonna PAY them so they can STEAL my info so they can SELL it to other companies, they are absolutely retarded, and headed by a chief executive officer who not only dresses as if sweaters and collar shirts are a good choice but has no clue what a game should actually be.

 

[pocketdrummer]

"As it stands now, developers still haven't utilized the full potential of the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 – they haven't squeezed the last ounce of hardware horsepower from either platform."

Then why did the devs for Battlefield 3 have to reduce the map size and cut down the maximum players per server AND run only @ 720p (not 1080p) AND cap out at 30 fps? Why is that exactly?

If the idiot gamers that keep clinging to these things don't move on, the developers might be the first to jump ship. As far as that's concerned, I have only one thing to say to them...

"Come on over, the water's fine"

 

[farrow099]

Everyone in the tech field KNOWS the x360 and ps3 have both been pushed to their limits. There are soo many examples it is just ludicrous to say otherwise.

This man should leave the tech industry and become Amish.
I'm sure his boss and/or shareholders will be having a talk with him shortly!