The next generation of consoles will not be sold solely on the basis of how much better the games look.
They were NEVER the sole selling point GamingBolt you ridiculous fools
It certainly helps, but exclusive games have always been the main draw.
I think the main draw for consoles is just that...consoles are closed system, no need to update this and that driver, try this or that to fix a game etc
When competing with PC this is certainly a key factor, however when competing with other closed console systems exclusives still remain the top draw. My opinion at least.
sushimama -"They were NEVER the sole selling point GamingBolt you ridiculous fools" and that's why ray-tracing is coming to consoles. because it doesn't matter....
@ Sephiroushin "I think the main draw for consoles is just that...consoles are closed system, no need to update this and that driver, try this or that to fix a game etc" consoles still receive game patches and firmware updates though.
Games in general are the main draw. Doesn't matter where the game comes from, just that someone wants to play a specific one, or collection of specific games. Everything else may be a factor if people weigh options where they may exist. Having a strong first party means that chances are higher that someone will have more incentive to choose a system over the other, because that's the only place they can play it. But, it boils down to games in the end.
I Think I Spent More Time Playing Hotline Miami than Crysis 3 on ultra
I actually do agree with GamingBolt though. because PC has over 1,000 exclusives and yet it's the ones with good graphics that are the ones listed as BIG exclusives. the fact of the matter is you could have a thousand exclusive titles, but are they the ones that interest you. graphics do sell, and it's the titles with big budgets that are listed as big exclusives. case in point.
"They were NEVER the sole selling point GamingBolt you ridiculous fools" kinda disagree with that statement. at the beginning of every generation hardware is always listed as the selling reason to upgrade. and tech demos are usually the first content gamers see from the hardware. it's been that way for 30 years.
I dunno, sounds like you weren’t around for the PS4/Xbox One launch
It was for Xbox One X. That's all they touted it for.
Its Pramath, what did you expect??
How quickly people forget the 1080p/900p debacle.
Too bad Phil we play games not resolutions Spencer didn't learn the lesson, am I right?
@Srhalo He did learn the lesson which is why the Xbox X came out. Am I right?
The point is hypocrisy. And I don't think he's learned the lesson. But I'm sure the x did teach him one thing... that 4k won't sell an xbox.
Once again you have no point other than to keep some extremely tired argument going about how MS hurt you. The real point here is how there is case of graphics and resolution when purchasing a console, especially in the past. Time to grow up
I think the reason people are saying this now is because the expectation is that both will be almost identical in technological capabilities with regards to performance and resolution. But, if one of them came out and didn't fully support 4k, that would be laughable and we definitely need to deride them for that failure.
Pretty sure the $100 price difference was a bigger factor. It's a nice excuse to always go back to the graphics argument yet the Xbox One X hasn't changed much for Xbox sales has it? Did you conveniently forget the Switch absolutely destroying Xbox sales despite the 'graphics' being an issue? Pretty sure the 1st party and 3rd party exclusives are the reason why. Also the graphics excuse you use makes no sense. Did you also forget PS1, PS2, Wii being the weakest in their generations?
Exactly. I personally thought the PS1 and PS2 had the worst graphics up against the consoles they were competing with, but they still dominated. Then you have the Wii that sold like crazy and was easily behind the PS3 and Xbox 360 when it came to graphics. Now we have the Switch which is really struggling in that area but is still selling really well.
I can’t ever remember a console doing well because it’s “sole” selling feature was graphics.
Graphics are the result of newer technology. They allow not only more details but new ways to play. 3D games made Zelda OotT and Gran Turismo possible. This gen allowed The Witcher 3. Powerful hardware extends The boundaries of play.
I get it, it definitely can be an important if not an exciting feature for any console. But it’s never the sole reason for a purchase, especially when obviously games are the sole reason for a console, and for me at least price is typically important (at least at launch).
You must have not have been around during the 16 bit era. That was pretty much the main selling point for consoles releasing during that time.
I’ve been around since the Atari 2600 days, and while the Genesis had a different style of graphics than the SNES, it was still about which games on the system you preferred. Plus you had the TurboGrafx was from a processing standpoint more powerful... but not exactly a console that took the world by storm, along with the NEOGEO or 3DO.
That's not true at all. While games was a factor it was still all about the graphics. And the 16 bit era definitely leaned more on graphics than processing power, especially from a marketing stand point. When the Jaguar, 3DO and even Genesis relied on that premise of having better graphics than one another and especially the SNES Genesis did have blast processing, but that was a joke and wasn't true at all and was also a marketing term used to sell the system.
The Genesis factually had a better processor than the SNES, so the “speed” of gameplay action was very evident in their games. But the SNES had the FX chip which allowed for 3D-ish games like Starfox, MARIO Kart and others. So each system did something different graphically/gameplay wise but not necessarily better. I got the SNES because of Mario? Zelda, TMNT, UN Squadron and the list goes on, but owning one never stopped me from looking at the Genesis and wanting it for the games. So I think we’ll agree to disagree on this topic.
When were they ever the sole point in buying a console
Long time ago.
I play since Atari. It never was.
Xbox One X. I'm not saying this in a positive light either.
Yeah you gotta clarify on here you could had the whole mob after you
It was the point of buying PS4 pro and One X. Pro wasn't really worth it tho it was minor upgrade
But... there will be more pixels...
But will they be 'the highest quality pixels that anybody has seen'?
PS1 was weaker than the N64. PS2 was the weakest console that gen. Wii wasn't even HD and won. Even the PS3 beat 360 despite having worse multiplat performance and visuals. PS4 had won due to MS falling on their head so hard and PS3 exclusive reputation. Switch is selling hot because of portability and exclusives. VISUALS HAVE NEVER BEEN THE SELLING POINT!!!!!! (not a reply lelo2play, just saying)
SpinKiss.︆co︆︆m - gr𝚎𝚊t pr𝚘j𝚎сt fоr аdults whо wаnt t𝚘 find а s𝚎x partner
There are no adults on N4G. Nice try.
Exclusives are and always will be the biggest selling point by far. Graphics are supplementary.
Graphics used to be a big deal coming from the 8bit days. Now, id take substance over surface anytime.
Nope, exclusives still reigned supreme, NES far outperformed the master system which was technically superior, same with gameboy VS gamegear.
Going from 8bit to 16 bit to 3D was a VERY big deal. The only focal point? Obviously not but for people to pretend like graphics weren't a selling point is ridiculous.
Then get Nintendo Switch or 3DS
Exclusives and graphics has always been the selling point of a system. Heck! Nintendo revived the gaming market and added "Nintendo seal of quality" on every game they allowed on the nes. And yes, the snes and mega drive was marketed as bringing the arcade home, the n64 and playstation offered 3d graphic and the jazz goes on~
Yet today, what with online updating being common, standards of quality have been thrown out the window to the point you'll get the last - next to last - Batman title that had a version that was so broken the publisher gave up trying to fix it. That had no excuse happening yet likely will again.
Seal of Quality was never referring to the games being good or not, look at LJN. They were just licensed and approved by Nintendo to prevent a flood of trash that created the crash of 83. Atari had zero restrictions who could put out games on their systems. So we had Purina dog chow games and porno games among others flooding store shelves pushing good games off the shelf. Nintendo set ground rules of what is not allowed in games released on their system. How many per year and who can release them on their system.
You're actually contradicting yourself in what you are saying, but I agree with everything except the last part. Nintendo did never tell developers that they have a certain amount of games they can release, why would they? They get paid for every sold copy the developer sells so they are making money. The Nintendo seal of quality is what you get from them in regards what you mentioned earlier. And yes, it was also to prove that the games on NES was good and not bad. " main reason for the video game industry crash of 1983 was the uprise of infamously bad games on the market, most notably E.T. for the Atari 2600, which was heavily advertised and consumers lost faith in the industry after. Nintendo, when creating the NES, forced many measures on developers and retailes. To ensure to the public that Nintendo games will always be of high quality, the Seal was first added in America and then later put in games in Europe and Australia. Only unlicensed Nintendo games don't get the seal. Hiroshi Yamauchi manually approved or disproved of every NES game liscensed to Nintendo, but stopped after the NES era, resulting in the switch of names from "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" to "Official Nintendo Seal"." https://nintendo.fandom.com...
They've never been. No matter how much others have emphasized them. Processing power, resolution and frames per second may have - all be - factors, but in the end it what's done with what is on hand that matters. "Someone" has seemingly never understood that...
Gaming bolt with a PlayStation picture instead of a multiple consoles picture to represent next gen. How interesting. Is it because PS5 might end up being the most powerful? Or just to rile PlayStation gamers up for clicks? Anyway... It's been all about the exclusives that gets gamers to buy. Graphics are nice. But was never the sole reason to get a new system. If it was about graphics, we'd all have high end PCs.
More than likely because it has, is in, the best position to be the most popular whereas Nintendo seems content being a secondary choice to two-system owners while Xbox is still getting over the mistakes of the XB1. Their reputation regarding 1st party support and game production.
I know I will get downvoted like crazy seeing as how hating Stadia seems to be the cool thing to do these days, but I am 100% of the belief cloud gaming is the future. I have been using PS4 remote play for the last few months and let me tell you now that there isn’t anything more rewarding than sitting at a Starbucks and pulling out my iPhone or iPad and playing like MK11 and COD online. And that is why Stadia has me so excited and can’t wait!
So you go to Starbucks and hang out and play COD on your phone over crappy WiFi? Does anyone do anything without having to be entertained by a portable screen anymore?
Didn't realize that was the sole selling point but ok.
Gamingbolt must be scared PS5 is more powerful than the next xbox.
It's a shame that this generation was initially centred around shallow morons favouring what resolution over another.
I know. First it was Sony fanboys, and now Microsoft fanboys are doing it. What's hilarious is that each console version of a game have almost always looked pretty much the same all gen.
Isnt that what it's still centered around? Just a different side now? Or do you mean this gen ms has become so insignificant that it's not possible to have anything centered around them?
So... it started this gen and not ya know way back when Sega was talking about 16 bit Genesis being better than NES, or really literally since the very first gaming devices. Just for fun here is an old atari ad. http://cdn.designbeep.com/w... This wasn't the ad I was looking for there was a an old Atari 7200 ad that specifically compared it's graphics to the competition. I'm sure there were tons more ads like that even back then.
Absoulte nonsense, they will provide a better 4k experience with better graphics of course.
It’s all about compelling games Sony, Nintendo deliver in spades. For me that’s why I have always loved consoles. Closed systems that developers push to the limits.
Since when was that ever the case? Give me games please, and if they look fantastic then so much the better, but give me games first and foremost.
Gamingbolt = analyzing on paper specs Remember there was a time physics demands separate gpu on gaming PCs ,ps5 and xbox 2 aren't just 60 fps boxes, they're much more than that, the fact that zen2 cpu on consoles for itself is a steep.
Coming from the site that had constant click bait articles about graphics and resolution. Wonder what changed.
Graphics were never the sole selling point of consoles....has this person never heard of Nintendo????
Let me guess, now the important thing is to have f2p games on a subscription service, right?
Through out history every console ever released has been graphically better than the last console. Every new Atari console was graphically superior to the last console they released. Every new Nintendo console was graphically superior to the last console they released. Every new Sega console was graphically superior to the last console they released. Every new Sony console was graphically superior to the last console they released. Every new MS console was graphically superior to the last console they released. Better graphics will always be at the forefront of this industry. If not we'd still be playing every single game released today with 8 bit graphics because graphics didn't matter right? WRONG!
The reason why we play games is because they're fun. We buy new consoles to continue having fun. The reason we bought different consoles was because some games were not available on another platform or the current gen we were playing. So we bought the new console to play the new games. Graphics help. But it's the games and gameplay that sell and keep you coming back. I've seen amazing looking games that played like trash since Atari days. It's not the graphics. You can meet a beautiful woman and she's dumb as fk. Her personality won't keep you. But someone with substance will make you stay. So, the reality is that it was never about her looks. It was how she made you feel. Her looks was just one shallow selling point. Oh. And I still play 8 bit and 16 bit today and will do so next gen. Truthfully, I have more 2D indie titles than 3D games with the exception of VR. Because they're instantly more fun.
The first two years of Ps4 was Ps3 remastered so graphics do sale even if the framerate isnt updated I mean look at GTA V looks the same on ps3 and 360 aside from resolution boost and other few minuscule differences no 60fps same 30 fps target proof that Ps3 and 360 were more of a technical marvel than the 8th gen consoles
At some point during the NES and SMS, 8 bit graphics stopped being fun. Sales were down. So they move on to the next bigger and better thing. Nothing stays the same. Graphics had to advance. It's evolution.
When each console released they had very few games in retail. And the ones that did release along side usually showed off that console's graphics capabilities and how they're different from the last gen console. This is why in the beginning of this gen the debate was 1080p vs 900p, not games. It's always been the topic of debate or deciding factor especially during the 16 bit/32 bit era of console gaming.