Customer Discussions > video games discussion forum

Should Dev's leave the PS360 behind now or continue to support them?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 46 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Jul 2014 11:16:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2014 11:22:54 BDT
Lately I keep seeing two sets of arguments.

One group complaining about too many cross gen games and the fact that the last gen is holding back the new gen of consoles.

The second, a group complaining that dev's are releasing 'next gen only games and not supporting their PS360's anymore.

What do you think they should do ?

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 11:26:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2014 11:27:20 BDT
kinjoking says:
microsoft already said in a statement before the XO arrived that the 360 would be supported for 3 years. there are many games still in development that are bound for 360 that dont have the budget to go next gen.

plus people are still buying 360s/ps3s so doesnt make sense to just completely abandon it.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 11:52:12 BDT
I think it would be bad move to just abandon a product that has such a large user base, especially when your trying to convince people to convert to the new product.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 11:55:14 BDT
It makes artistic sense to drop the ps3 and 360 as the ps4 and x1 give devs far more to experiment with. But financially it makes sense to stick with the oldies as that's where the majority are.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 11:59:54 BDT
AndyBSG says:
I think they will realistically continue to support them for at least another year.

That may sound a lot shorter than it is because i'm guessing the average dev time for a game nowadays is a couple of years so i'd say that give you a 3 year period where new titles on the current gen will still be plentiful.

I suspect that after xmas most new developments that aren't already in progress will be next gen only.

I also suspect the PS3 will suffer more than the 360.

PS4 and X-Bone are both very similar to PC's in architecture so i'd imagine the 360 which is also similar will be quite easy to just port next gen games to with graphics lowered while the PS3's unique architecture will make it harder to just create dumbed down versions without a lot more development costs(i'm not sure how easy it is to get round the lower RAM issues on last gen compared to the lower graphic card issues and if it's as simple to just 'turn things down' from a RAM perspective like it is from a graphic card one?).

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:03:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2014 12:06:34 BDT
But surely you see all the complaints that 'next games' are not very next gen, you need look no further than this forum for such complaints.

Do all these cross gen games not make the situation worse ?

Does having a last gen version of a game hold back the next gen version?

There are also lots of people on just waiting to in vest in next gen, where is there motivation to jump next gen if you they can get the games on their current gen?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:07:09 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2014 12:07:48 BDT
kinjoking says:
people who care about shiney graphics and making their TV look nice with a chic console stuck underneath will always go next gen. the rest of people will look at it from a logical perspective and say, why bother updating when i can get what i want when i want on the platform that i have for cheaper the cost.

in saying that i will be going next gen within 6 months.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:14:22 BDT
I think the problem is that this time around the difference between cross gen games is minimal compared to last time. Compare NFSMW, Just Cause, FIFA etc on Xbox and 360, the difference is obvious to everyone, whereas this time the difference is only obvious to those who care. Once the next gen only titles start appearong , there should be an obvious difference, but to most people there isn't much need for a next gen console as the old ones are still providing the experience they desire, once next starts providing an experience that last gen can't, that's when devs will drop the 360 and ps3.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:20:38 BDT
"but to most people there isn't much need for a next gen console as the old ones are still providing the experience they desire"

Exactly, but maybe concentrating on Next Gen would better the chances of giving them the more 'next gen games' and stuff they couldn't get on PS360.

Its a whole Chick and Egg situation and I do see both sides, but its interesting seeing these 2 opposite arguments keep popping up.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 12:21:40 BDT
Hackerdude says:
Putting graphics, games etc aside. MS and Sony are businesses first and foremost. Dropping either would cripple the company. As mentioned above the user base is still far larger than the next gens as most people simply can't afford them in the climate we live in.

The good thing is that although these may in some cases hold back the next gen games these 2 consoles are basicly bankrolling them.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:22:49 BDT
G. Hanks says:
"Do all these cross gen games not make the situation worse ?"

Taking the Dreamcast as an example, it was good to have cross gen games on it to bolster the release schedule (and also gave those who didn't have a PS1 to try stuff like Resi 2.) The DC versions often weren't that much different, just better resolution, framerate, a bit more detail here and there. However the DC had a slew of exclusives too which were of high quality and really showed off the hardware.

Devs just need to find the balance but I think, due to the high risk nature of modern triple A, they're being a bit slow in the uptake. Also these cross gen games are a good way for devs to get to grips with making games for the new systems.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 12:24:23 BDT
Dela says:
Ask Doonni

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:32:08 BDT
I suppose the difference back on the DC was that it didn't cost the earth to make a "next gen" game. These days one bad game can sink a developer due to cost of development. They just can't risk it

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:40:36 BDT
G. Hanks says:
A true thing that. Plus time as well is a big issue. Big teams, big games, new architecture equals longer development. I think that's probably the main reason for this gen's slow start.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 12:42:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 9 Jul 2014 12:42:37 BDT
Yeah obviously a complete abandonment of the PS3 and 360 would be financial suicide, because as has been pointed out the install base in much larger than next gen.

However how long can this go on for ? and if devs are scared to go next gen because of the lower install base how can they ever hope for that install base to rise ?

Also It is just that yesterday we had a massive discussion about why the leap in type, quality and visuals of games is so small on the new gen and many people are not happy. However most people on here think that games should continue to be cross gen? Is that not contradictory?

I am playing devils advocate here of course, just for discussion purposes. I think Andy & G Hanks is right we need to find a good balance and with games like Batman, Witcher, Division on their way and all being next gen only, we maybe getting there?

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 13:03:58 BDT
G. Hanks says:
I think the Christmas run up that starts in October will hopefully feel like the new gen is arriving. I think the timing of console launches along with the yearly game cycle hasn't helped things. November last year was too close to Christmas for devs to get much out beforehand, then we had the usual bits and pieces in the first 6 months, now the summer drought and then the storm will hit with a large amount of games as winter approaches.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 13:18:59 BDT
kinjoking says:
another minor point to think about is that, the microsfot execs have said that the 360 went on too long. even though they are still supporting it for next 3 years. point being that the same execs also said that they do not want another console to go on aslong as the 360 did and will look to release another console after the One in about 5 years. so simple maths tells you that the XO will only get 2 years without the 360 up and running before the X2 is released. so why buy XO when you can go from 360 to X2 after 2 years from 360s end?

although in 3 years time the XO will be cheap to buy so would be worth a punt after the 360 finally gets put to pasture. even if only for 2 years.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 13:33:13 BDT
So its probably worth skipping the X1 entirely by that logic. There's plenty on the 360 to keep you entertained for another 4 years.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 14:09:23 BDT
"Yeah obviously a complete abandonment of the PS3 and 360 would be financial suicide, because as has been pointed out the install base in much larger than next gen.

However how long can this go on for ? and if devs are scared to go next gen because of the lower install base how can they ever hope for that install base to rise ?"

I think we're going to see a big movement from current to next gen over the Xmas period. The consoles have established themselves with a bit of a back catalogue of games available, there's been some price cuts/deals (and I'd expect more going into Xmas, not necesarily official ones but certainly retailers) and it's Christmas so you'll get a lot of people getting them as presents.

Also the games will be starting to show more than just graphical improvements accross generations, The Shadow of Mordor dev has confirmed the Nemesis system will be next gen only and while not confirming specifics Bioware have said there will be significant differences between the different versions for DA:I. Once we start seeing improvements in the actual gameplay between gens, and not just prettier versions, I think we'll start to see a lot of people upgrading.

Posted on 9 Jul 2014 14:11:40 BDT
Bozz says:
Am I right in thinking the recent cross gen releases have sold significantly better on current gen than last? If so it won't be long until developers move to current get only, they won't keep making games for last gen if they don't sell well as it would be a waste of time and money.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 14:20:11 BDT
kinjoking says:
this is my point. playstation and microsoft have made a rod for their own backs by keeping the ps3/360 alive for so long, not that im complaining im perfectly happy to be playing 360 for another 5 years . but i will want next gen games like FO4 and ME4 so i have to upgrade. but it will be annoying to then have to change consoles again in 3 or 4 years time. which will be another 500 to fork out.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 14:35:33 BDT
Joy of consoles im afraid. Another reason in sticking to PC gaming for longer

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 14:37:47 BDT
kinjoking says:
if i could get my head around playing a game on keyboard i would play on PC but i cant play a game without a controller :(

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 15:03:46 BDT
That's a poor argument. I regularly play using a 360 controller. 90% of games are 100% compatible with them these days

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2014 15:03:55 BDT
"Joy of consoles im afraid. Another reason in sticking to PC gaming for longer "

Im pretty sure you would have spent money on your PC over years too Will, updating it. You just don't have to do it on one big chunck.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  21
Total posts:  46
Initial post:  23 days ago
Latest post:  17 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions