Owning a Console is More Complicated (And Expensive) Than Ever

The PS4 Pro and Scorpio are obscuring some of the traditional benefits of owning a console.

[OB1Biker]

That's BS
I'm planning on using my OG PS4 until next gen. Not complicated at all. Of course if someone gets a 4k TV they have the option to upgrade but I don't feel I have too.

[nevarDcirE]

If your gonna stick with PlayStation then ye, there's no need for you to upgrade

[OB1Biker]

There's never been the shadow of an 'if' man haha

[4Sh0w]

"Owning a Console is More Complicated (And Expensive) Than Ever"

- No, not at all. If you want a bump in performance or graphics and perhaps you have a 4K TV, then get a ps4pro or Scorpio.

-Except for both companies now introducing an "mid gen" upgraded system rather than a full fledged next gen brand new console, (that you don't have to buy) nothing's really changed. In fact you dont care much about a liitle better graphics and performance you could easily continue enjoying the OG X1 and ps4 until a proper next gen console launched.

-Why does it seem some want to make a problem where there is none or over think everything?

[thekhurg]

PC gaming is the cheaper option. Consoles have become a ripoff

[Kleptic]

Everything you guys are saying is correct, but objectively...it IS the most complicated generation ever, arguably. That's what people are ignoring. It's not 'that' complicated, but it definitely is a stranger situation than it was even a year ago...let alone nearly every generation before this.

Now you have choices, now you have performance figures that certain sku's won't hit, support for resolutions on certain displays that certain sku's aren't compatible with...Companies messed with increasing a console's performance before, usually through memory upgrades, or other add on type things that received little support...This is completely different, and for the first time there are inter-generational console changes with very significant performance differences from the originally released hardware...

developers now have to target multiple 'ps4s' or 'xbox's...

I'm not saying console gaming just lost all of the simple advantages it ever had over PC...but, saying things are just as simple as before...is ridiculous.

[mikeslemonade]

Lol you guys wrong to think that you don't need to upgrade from PS Poor. My PC is more than 5 times stronger than PS Poor.

You will feel the pain when your games end up being low settings by next year.

[TooRightMate]

@mikeslemonade

After seeing Horizon Zero Dawn perform on a console, theres no need to upgrade. You'll never get a game as good as that on PC

[BenRC01]

Enjoy "ultra settings" on indie games and ropey ports.

[agent4532]

Is not BS, game developers will become frustrated if the OG PS4 prevents them from making their game. 2018 will be the year that game developers will not bother with the OG PS4 and make games only for the PS4 Pro due to optimized hardware. Is time to get rid of console hardware in favor of services like Xbox game pass. Why limit game developers to ancient technology is beyond retarded.

[hafitz]

I think it's the same when it comes to PC. Why bother with PS4 Pro when there's GTX 1080ti. So there's your answer...

[Silly gameAr]

You\'re making it sound like the PS4 is old as heck, and it's already time for a new gen. The PS4 is not even 5 years old yet and games still look amazing on it. What are you talking about?

[Kleptic]

I don't understand why people think developers are most concerned with 'maximum performance' for their particular game...

The original PS4 is by far the most popular chunk of hardware in consumer hands right now...developers will have literally no issue continuing to build software for it, especially considering the installed base keeps rising, and development costs keep falling...

developers aren't at all concerned about the PS4 holding anything back...buyers of the PS4 pro, PC hardware like the 1080ti (or, literally anything released since 2013 for that matter), or scorpio...that is the demographic that should be concerned with the reality that as long as the original PS4 is the most popular option, there will continue to be fewer incentives of pushing the more powerful options.

[FyBy]

Yeah! Why limit games with support for 1070 if there is 1080. Because lot of of gamers have weak gpus. Not that monster ones that are many times stronger than PS4 gpu.

Developing games for one console is better than for lot of pc components combinations. But porting from pc where power is not limiting to weaker console is a problem. And also....not all developers are talented in optimizing code. They have little problems on pc but big on consoles when porting.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

@FyBy

Your on point, the majority of people on PC game at 1080p, whether they don't have the GPU or the monitor for it, I don't know. But I think 4k gaming is still a little way away from becoming the norm.

Although I think it's more an issue porting from console at pc, look at all the crappy PC ports we're getting these days. Sorry PC master race, your kinda getting shafted lately.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

it's a non-issue, there isn't that much difference with generation, alot of that stuff is just not needed if you don't care about it. Just buy the consoles and the games and that's it. You get you're mid gen refreshes like your previous gen, your peripherals if you need or want them, an online service that you can take advantage of as little or as much as you like. So to tackle the main point of the article, nothing has changed (Can't say for Scorpio, we'll have to wait for specs and benchmarks on that one).

[Nyxus]

Not really, I'm still using my launch PS4.

[Razzer]

Most are. Regular PS4 is going to continue to be the best selling console for some time. So regular folks are going to stick with the simpler, cheaper models as always.

[agent4532]

The OG PS4 has reached is limit; therefore, PS4 Pro releases. 2018 no more game development for OG PS4 only PS4 Pro due to 2011 OG PS4 hardware

[Razzer]

@agent

What are you talking about?

[agent4532]

Console gamers were duped into buying a 2011 gaming PC pretended that native 1080p/60 frames per second did not matter. That 4K was not a thing and VR was not real. Sony and Microsoft were fully aware of 4K tvs arrival in 2014. The fact that they knew about it and did nothing shows how greedy these corporations are. Think about it 10 years and failed to release a 4K console really.

[Razzer]

Because price matters

[Kleptic]

A 1080Ti can't do native 4k across every game, it struggles to hold 30 fps on GR wildlands, which is currently packed in with the card...

that card is more than a PS4 and PS4 Pro...combined (price wise, haha...and even more so performance wise)...Sony full well knew 4k 'was coming'...they also knew the rendering performance to do it still isn't close to main stream, nor are the costs associated...

the only thing with this gen that frustrates me about 4k...is the fact that the console makers continue to talk about...4k...Pro and Scorpio are break neck 1080/60hz devices...those things could do some outrageously impressive stuff at a policy wide 1080/60hz min requirement...instead, they're half assing 4k on freaking consoles with 4k HDR TV standards still shifting around (HDR not supported in game modes on some, etc., stuff like that that)...exactly like they pushed around 1080 last generation...the hardware isn't capable of it, focus on what it IS capable of, and make it a requirement so that devs don't waste time and resources attempting it...then release completely new hardware in the future when they actually are capable of it.

We're headed towards the next consoles being very good at 4k, yet all we'll be sitting around debating will be 8k upscaled grid-locked synthesized AA asset recreation 'pixels out of thin air' nonsense...and still dip under 30 fps while doing it...

[isarai]

Lol no it isnt, games use to cost in the $100usd standard and consoles around $1,000 in todays money in the 70's. Now consoles cost less than a third of that and games fall a wide range from Free to $60. I dont know why people have this notion that optional DLC and special editions are mandatory. Hell even these new console versions are very niche and only really benifitial if you have a 4k tv.

[SH1ELD]

Cause they were longer.

[kevnb]

games in the 70s were actually not very long, just usually much harder.

[4Sh0w]

isarai,

Very well said.

-I know its not the same but I always think of consoles prices, sku's, iterations, and launches in comparison to these $750 cell phones that release every year with very minor upgrades. - Nobody NEEDS the latest model if their old smartphone is still working fine, yet people who want that new feature CAN upgrade if they dont mind paying for it, lol the old cell phone will work just fine for years if they don't.

[kevnb]

very true, unfortunately for us though back then people actually had money to waste.

[RommyReigns]

No, nowadays it's even easier with more information around for consumers to make a more informed choice.

[InTheZoneAC]

Yet millions make the wrong decision because they're too casual to care

[Forn]

That's on them then, isn't it?

[ARESWARLORD]

People can decide what they want to do with their money people are adults they can make decisions on what's important to them for me I wanted the more advanced visuals of the PS4 Pro so I bought one and gave my regular PS4 to my son I mostly game on PC because I like the better visuals and I can guarantee you I'll be picking up an Xbox Scorpio at some point just for the fact that it's the most phenomenal system ever. it's basically a PC. I bust my ass in a factory for every cent I make and if I want to drop money on a mid-cycle upgrade of a system that's my choice and if you don't that's your choice priorities to each their own

[chaimera086]

While the promise of plug and play gaming is somewhat gone from consoles, they are still the far simpler alternative to gaming when compared to a PC. Updates and extra media functionality haven't really taken away from the simplicity, as much as added to the user experience for those who wish the delve that deeply into the consoles functionality. You can still technically hook the system up, put a disc in, launch the game and be playing within a matter of minutes.

[NohansenBoy]

Most if not all games this generation requires a certain amount of HDD space. AAA titles seem to take up the most space with HDD space requirements going all the way to 60GB needed and games also get made now a days on consoles with a firmware requirement. This requirement has nothing to do with functionality, but rather patching exploits hackers find since non of the big three wants people on an exploitable firmware. These two things in my opinion has made consoles more complex than pre-internet access consoles like the N64.

I'm not sure if people just toss their consoles at the end of the consoles life span, but being able to change out parts in a PC is awesome since I don't need to throw the entire thing out to play the next step up in graphically improving games. I guess you've gotta know clean out current GPU drivers and this thing plugs into this thing and then install new drivers. For me that process only takes maybe 20 minutes or less. With that, how long do firmware updates on consoles typically take?

[chaimera086]

I definitely don't disagree with you. As someone who has a gaming PC I understand it simple. That being said, a lot of people are scared of the unknown on PC's. I had a buddy hit me up cause he was worried about putting his new CPU into a custom build that he had bought and was finally upgrading. These are easy things that require just a little knowledge, but some people love the idea that even today's consoles being more complicated, do everything for you really.

[Fist4achin]

It's not really all that difficult. I buy a console to play games. The console is a little expensive, but it's not that bad to save some money until I can afford it. I would chose the system that has the games/options/services you find appealing and go for it!

[Discobastrd]

because life is haaaaarrrrrrd, mommy...

[InTheZoneAC]

This article is reeeetaaaardeeeeeeeed

[Bronxs15]

This is true. But consoles are also more capable than ever.

[Tetsujin]

I can debate this on both ends.

When I owned the NES back then, I could have just as much fun with only 4-5 games (and borrowing/renting the rest) and be set for a long time. Also consoles back then came with at least 1 game (depending on deals/specials up to 3 games with console purchase), along with 2 controllers, and I remember games costing $49-$59 for new releases. For the NES, at max I think $500~ was the absolute most spent on gaming.

Sega Genesis I owned with a 6 button controller and Street Fighter 2, with Sonc 2 as the game that came with it. Sega CD I found at a KB Toys for $30 (still have the receipt to prove it, although it's faded), and the games were cheaper since the N64 and Playstation was still in its early stages. I'd probably say around $600~ including controllers and a second console because the player 1 port was going bad.

Fast forward to now; some of the PS plus games are free every month, and there are some F2P games with microtransactions if you wanted the extras the game has to offer. What gets me though, in the past consoles came with at least a game and/or demo to show what the system has to offer, and at least something to start your collection with. Now, unless its a sale off a site or store, its the base model and you as the customer is expected to buy what you want with it. Since online is considered the new multiplayer, only one controller is included, and the sale of Plus/Live is heavily pushed (unless you're on Steam, which is still free online). So far I've spent $3000+ for 3 different PS4 consoles (launch, Batman version, and the Pro), and we're still into the generation.

Back then, I could only own maybe a handful of games, spend around $500, and be just fine with what I owned. Renting/borrowing was as far as I needed to go for newer experiences, and once I had my fill I was good. Now, depending on the title(s) I have to buy them to "hope" I like what I'm getting into. Some games I can test on another profile (or have to visit a friends place), and watching a video on the Internet is not the same experience as playing no matter how much someone tries to debate it.

I'd have to give my vote to classic gaming; no patches to download, consoles can survive almost anything, all games could be played (even Phantasy Star Online can be played on any DreamCast, since the online is down), and I can at least test play a game before buying.

[SH1ELD]

I find this article contradict with other articles that says "Why you should buy x console at launch or in 201X?", that's completely up to their choices.

[kevnb]

go away. Its not like we have a genesis/sega cd/ 32x situation.

[Fishy Fingers]

Nothing complicated about it. Just welcome to the world of options. Days of nursing a system for 8-10 years are gone, support will continue but with enthusiastic consumers demands ever increasing, other technology like TVs out pacing consoles and developer aspirations always growing, there will be a market for more up to date hardware.

They're basically becoming closed PCs, you're just forced to buy everything again if you choose to upgrade rather than hand picking select components as and when.

Expensive? Well that's subjective. The amount of use I get from any system I've owned has paid for itself within a year or two. I'd happy upgrade every 3-4 years barring the upgrade being substantial enough.

[mastershredder]

You don't need a pro or scorpio. YOU think you do. Marketing works wonders. Do not buy into any of that hype machine BS.

[Gantrfaxx]

And still cheaper and more simple than having a high end pc and playing new games on high settings. So actually it's a no-brainer.

[mandingo]

No they are not. Ps3 was 600 bucks. How are consoles more expensive than ever when nothing has ever surpassed that price. Im confused?

[Tetsujin]

A lot of it has to do with what a consumer buys with the console. Games, online services, extra peripherals, etc. where as back then it was console, maybe an extra controller, and a couple of games.

NES I bought with TMNT (first one), and forgot the other game. I lived on about 5-6 games total for the NES during it's run. I rented and borrowed the rest, and I was happy.

Sega Genesis I bought with 2 6 button controllers, Street Fighter 2, and a couple of months later Mortal Kombat. Again, lived on borrowing/renting for a long time, and at the end of its life I had a stack of games that were bought on discount/cheap.

SNES came with a stack of games (bought off a friend), and 2 controllers. Same situation.

Fast forward to now. PS4, Injustice, and Killzone 4 at launch (I had plus carry over so I didn't include it). At start about $520 including tax. Just at the start of this gen it cost more than what I paid in the past for a total experience. That's not even including psn purchases, other games I've rotated through, and with the lack of being able to test certain games I have to gamble if I want to buy into something.

Gaming today is just as, if not more expensive, than the past. People can argue "inflation," and "dollar exchange is different now than back then," however the majority will argue/debate something they didn't live through - just what they read online.

What's worse, the "simple" games back then hold more value than what we have today, which is sad.

[Kallisti]

Really? The original PS3 launched at the same price as the Xbox One this gen. In fact both the PS4 Pro and PS4 launched for $100 less than the PS3 and Xbox One and at the same price as the Xbox 360.