The Lessons That Need To Be Learned For Next Gen

The 8th generation of consoles has been a strange one, to say the least. While some of the greatest success stories that will be referenced for years to come have arisen from the past 7 years, we have also seen some of the most colossal screw-ups that have led several fearmongering people to speculate that we may be heading to another crash. Needless to say, the 8th gen has been nothing but extremes on both sides and with the next-gen coming around the corner the future of gaming has never been more uncertain. So today we’ll be going over the mistakes that have been made by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and hope to god that they learn from them.

Read Full Story >>

The story is too old to be commented.
timotim1021d ago

That we as gamers are no longer one dimensional! We game on tons of different TVs, monitors, sound systems etc with different capabilities and we need are games to accommodate that! The more options in your games, the better for us gamers. The days of 30FPS 16:9 only titles is over. We want 60FPS, 120FPS when its viable, 21:9 support, Atmos sound support, performance and graphic options etc. Stop limiting the way we can it up and let the gamer choose.

xX-oldboy-Xx1021d ago

Sounds like you want to game on a PC. And most of their games don't offer support for all the things you mentioned.

Remember how much these consoles are going to cost.

--Onilink--1021d ago

What does the cost of the consoles have to do with games offering different modes of different resolutions and framerates? The current consoles already do it

xX-oldboy-Xx1021d ago

--Onilink-- Because most of those features are few and far between on High-end PC's.

Sure a 60fps or 30fps is doable in most cases, but if you really want lots of graphics options - PC is for you.

Your comment only highlighted one of the original posts demands.

timotim1021d ago

The PS4 Pro and the 1X have already begun to go down this road of providing graphics and performance options...1X more so though. Rise of The Tomb Raider on 1X has both a graphics and performance option as an example. M&K support has also come over to consoles. And since devs are already use to this practice on PCs already, it wouldn't take much to simply bring them over from the PC port. Its not about how much the consoles cost...its about evolving with the times. This isn't the 8bit era anymore...our tech has must our devs on consoles. Next-gen isn't just how pretty you can make your game...

1021d ago
--Onilink--1021d ago

But those are TV/monitor features, the only thing the console needs to use them is the proper hdmi output, which they do.

After that, it up to the developers which of those options they want to implement in their game

Rhythmattic1020d ago (Edited 1020d ago )

"Its not about how much the consoles cost...its about evolving with the times. This isn't the 8bit era anymore...our tech has must our devs on consoles. Next-gen isn't just how pretty you can make your game..."

Yep.. And Proprietary design/os/API's are why consoles do actually make advancements that can be adopted into the PC industry..

NXGamer did a interesting vid on the SSD and its benefits..... Those benefits, right now , in its application, can not be utilised even on a PC... Why? There are reasons.....
(and before you respond, watch the vid)
Ill just add this .... A little juxtapose....
"our tech has must our devs on the PC platform"

1020d ago
xX-oldboy-Xx1020d ago

1gamer - You misunderstand, I'm more than happy with the state of console gaming, you can as unlimited as you want - I don't care how you game. Sony haters like to throw around the argument 'a few exclusives' as though it's a bad thing. Are you excited for CP2077 - so am I - it's a new ip.

It drives you plonkers nuts that Sony is a successful as they in the gaming space - I'll tell you why that is - they give PlayStation owners what we want, new games, quality remakes of beloved titles and of course - here it comes - are you ready - EXCLUSIVES.

ms do a remaster (too lazy to even do a remake, it looked like poop) of Phantom Dust then monetise it thinking because fans have asked for it - they can cop some MT's to go with that nostalgia. And then you have PC, getting dudded by their own kind - how long has everyone waited for Half Life 3? See the difference.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1020d ago
--Onilink--1021d ago (Edited 1021d ago )

No idea why all the disagrees you have... whats bad about having more options? Most third party games already have a PC version of the games with those options.

I dont need a whole buch of sliders for every single option, but at least a few modes (and fov slider) to take advantage of all the features supported by consoles now.

30fps with RT, plus all the bells and whistles, plus whatever res it can achieve
60fps without RT and hopefully a higher res than option 1
And a simple toggle to lock or unlock framerate, for people that have TVs that support VRR, LFC and Freesync

(Plus Im certain we’ll see some 120fps games running at 1080 or a bit higher, though expecting every game to do that is a bit much)

xX-oldboy-Xx1021d ago

Sorry I miss understood the original post - so you're happy with 30fps?

The original post led me to believe that's not acceptable for next gen consoles.

Remember who I'm replying to and what you are actually replying too.

--Onilink--1021d ago


I think its impossible to avoid 30fps. Not only will some devs will really try to push as much as possible graphically, something like ray tracing (unless its use is very very limited) almost guarantees a game using it wont reach 60fps if they are also pushing graphics strongly in other areas.

However I do think having at least a few graphics modes in which those kind of intensive features are dialed down or removed in favor of 60fps should really start to become more common. Last gen the reason/excuse was the CPU bottleneck. This time its different.

And also a toggle for unlock/lock framerates shouldnt be that hard to implement, since practically every PC game has it

xX-oldboy-Xx1021d ago

tim - Most people don't even have decent 4K TV's. And the market for 21:9 would be so minuscule - what would be the point?

HDMI 2.1 is really only fully supported by LG this year, that might change next year though - I'm hoping Sony release a Master Series OLED with HDMI 2.1 next year.

Not over burdening devs with so many variables allows more time spent on creativity.

Sony has taken steps to address poor audio with tempest, which as it stands is just a marketing term until we hear/see real world results and feedback.

timotim1021d ago (Edited 1021d ago )

How many people had a DVD player before Sony added it to the PS2? How many people had a Blu-Ray player before Sony added it to the PS3? How many people had a Ethernet connection before Microsoft added it to the original Xbox? How many games supported 16:9 before 360 & PS3? Yet they still did so and advanced the industry right?

Your argument is ancient and doesnt work anymore. Their are millions of console gamers that game on PC monitors with HDMI ports on them. Maybe they cant take advantage of 8K...but they can certainly take advantage of 120FPS support, 21:9 support and the like. Yes...tons of cheap 4K TVs sold that are out there...but those people can certain take advantage of M&K support when needed. You might not be able to get everything...but the goal is that what you do have/want, that the games support it so you get the most out of your tech. As the generation goes on, so will more consumers gravitate to what devs are supporting. I have an OLED...from 2018...yet I just might upgrade it for the SX for games avalible at 120FPS and that smoothness. Ill say it again...devs shouldn't limit us...especially when they are already supporting these things for the PC platform.

xX-oldboy-Xx1021d ago

Are you seriously telling me DVD AND Ethernet gained that many more users because of consoles. Come on mate you can't believe that for a second.

BluRay on the other hand - stand alone players were the same price as a PS3 back then, so many opted for a PS3.

How many monitors support 120fps @ 4K? Or are you happy for 120fps @ 1080? Not many - and certainly not many in peoples home.

Again - most console AND PC users don't have the ability to watch or game at [email protected]

Demanding that out of console makers and developers is a bit much.

How much are these consoles again?

How much are the PC's running these games with the specs you desire?

All about balance mate.

timotim1021d ago (Edited 1021d ago )

Thats exactly what I'm telling you. Do your research my friend. How old are you btw?

"BluRay on the other hand - stand alone players were the same price as a PS3 back then, so many opted for a PS3"

Haha...youre only proving my point and you dont even see it. My question wasn't WHY they chose PS3 as their Blu-Ray was HOW MANY had a blu-ray player before Sony added it to the PS3. When you add these technologies to game consoles, adoption picks up tremendously. The more you support a technology on a game console, the faster it gets adopted. The good thing is that consumers are already adopting these technologies...this would only speed things up even more.

"How many monitors support 120fps @ 4K?"

Who said it has to be 4K at 120FPS??? The option devs would give gamers on these consoles would be closer to 1080p-1440p at120FPS...not 4K lol. Their are plenty of 1440p/120FPS monitors in the wild...get your mind right. What I am talking about is letting the gamer CHOOSE what they value more with the tech they already have. Many gamers would opt for lower resolution if it meant they could get higher frames and performance to display on their monitor/TV.

"Again - most console AND PC users don't have the ability to watch or game at [email protected]"

Youre talking about right this second...yet a console generation lasts 7-10 years haha...what will continue to drive that adoption is when devs create games with these options (yes that rhymed, I know). In two years time, a 4K/120FPS TV will be used way more than it is today and the generation would still be young. Again, get your mind right.

"How much are these consoles again?"

Why do you keep bringing up the price of the new consoles...its completely irrelevant. I have a OLED RIGHT NOW that is capable of 4K/60FPS...I want games that display that. Others have monitors and TVs thats capable of 120FPS...when possible devs should create games that take advantage of that tech because gamers will choose it.

AngelicIceDiamond1021d ago

"Are you seriously telling me DVD AND Ethernet gained that many more users because of consoles."

??? So a PS2 at launch cost 299$ while a DVD at that time was around 700 to 1000$ dollars. I could only imagine how much money Sony lost on the PS2 due to the fact they put a DVD player in there. That alone lined up the casual market im DROVES wanting a ps2 because it was the cheapest DVD Player.

The Dreamcast was the first console to have a Ethernet cable but only a select few games had online functionality. MS saw that and anticipated the faster internet speeds such as broadband isp. Building the OG Xbox around online play. Blue Ray was did not cost as much as PS3 it was 1000$ but Sony once again had the format in its system for cheaper.

99 to 06 was, 7 years, 06 to 13 was 7 years. 13 to 20 also 7 years. Strange I wonder what what 2027 will bring? Just a side thought.

timotim1021d ago (Edited 1021d ago )


I was one of the first consumers to go online with the Dreamcast...was there on SegaNet day one. It was a dial-up modem, not Ethernet. Xbox was the first console to SHIP with a ethernet port on the console and advertised that Xbox Live (which came a year later after launch), would never use dial-up. Unreal Championship among others were what got the party started...but it wasn't until Halo 2 that ethernet adoption really took off.

In terms of life not simply talking about how many years until the next talking how long a console is supported...that usually last 7-10 years although it can be shorter. Sony unparticular always boasted about their life cycles for their platforms...

xX-oldboy-Xx1020d ago

tim - You silly billy - In your reply you gave 3 examples, 2 of which had next to no effect on market penetration and agreed with 1 that actually helped with market penetration - and you completely misunderstood what I said. BluRay is the only example of a format being helped by the inclusion of it in console hardware. Remember there was a format war at the time - or did you forget about that time ms tried to sell a HDDVD add-on for 360 haha.

I remember very well - good times.

Did the MEGA-CD help with CD adoption rates? See how silly that sounds. That's the same as DVD adoption rates being helped by PS2 and ETHERNET adoption by xbox. Too funny.

Now back to your original post - you're happy with some of the options that 'some' games give to consumers, and you want that as standard across the board. That's fair enough, but don't get ahead of yourself. Some of the features you mentioned are really not what console gamers would want I'd say, nor are they things that many devs would be willing to implement. You might get the odd game here and there but not as a standard.

Lucky Phil has come out and said not expect to 60fps on every game, the flagship title of their last 'event' (which was running on high-end PC) was confirmed it won't be running at 60fps on release. Just dial back your demands and expectations a little - these consoles need to be affordable.

What Sony showed already look astonishing on every level 30fps or not - if ms can manage similar results, everyone should be happy.

That's why my first response was to game on a PC. And I still think that's the easiest thing to do, you seem cluey enough to build one yourself - If I can I'm sure you can.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1020d ago
GreatSako20201021d ago

People who want 120 fps should just game on PC. Consoles are budget gaming hardware designed to play games at good graphics and decent performance.
30 fps for single player and 60 fps for competitive and sports games is very acceptable. No need for more.

timotim1021d ago

Thats an antiquated way of thinking my friend, and the very reason why the console industry isn't evolving outside of better visuals. Sony once said that resolution makes you a better gamer...well the real answer is that frames make you a better gamer...its the feel of the gameplay...the smoothness that you notice more than anything...that helps rather its single or multiplayer. 30FPS only is a fail for next-gen.

RazzerRedux1020d ago

"Thats an antiquated way of thinking my friend"

No, that's actually an accurate way of thinking. If you want to dictate your own gameplay then PC gives you options consoles don't. When consoles has the options to choose resolutions and graphical settings to achieve the desired frame rate then you can make that argument, but as it is, you just can't.

"Sony once said that resolution makes you a better gamer...well the real answer is that frames make you a better gamer"

And Phil Spencer once asked why anyone cares about frame rate. This is exactly the problem. Consoles dictate how you play. PC does not. So no, there was nothing "antiquated" about what GreatSako2020 said at all.

Stanjara1021d ago

Oh please, go and buy 120h 8k and keep watching Linus on 100gb/s ssd on your 32k pc. Consoles will be just fine without you.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1020d ago
AK911021d ago

Fix loading times that's been the worst thing about the 8th gen.

Bluemaster771020d ago

*Performance has been the worst thing about this gen. 30fps is unacceptable

Games1st1021d ago

Next gen needs close competition to keep each other in check.

RazzerRedux1020d ago

"the reason’s why Sony isn’t engaging in cross-play comes across as little more than excuses, I’m going to say that this is pure speculation on my part but I doubt that Sony would be taking this stance if this gaming generation hadn’t been a massive success for Sony."

lol....another article that is clueless about what Sony has done with PS4 crossplay with PC since the start of this generation.

"All we know of the PS5’s backward compatibility so far is that it will include 100 of the top PlayStation 4 games."

No, that's all you know. Sony has said they are making good progress in bringing the over 4000 PS4 games to PS5. Do some research.

CoNn3rB1020d ago

"I will point out that they have softened on this stance with select games getting the cross-play treatment but they’re still holding out as much as they give in."

"All we know of the PS5’s backward compatibility so far is that it will include 100 of the top PlayStation 4 games at launch."

Don't pick and choose elements of an article to fit your narrative, it makes you look incredibly childish.

RazzerRedux1020d ago (Edited 1020d ago )

Bullshit. PS4 has had more games with cross play than any other console this generation. You are picking and choosing what cross play you want to fit your narrative. Cross play didn't start with Fortnite regardless how many wanna-be "journalists" would like to believe it did.

Games with cross play:
PS4: 106
Xbox One: 66
Switch: 48

PlayStation 5 backward-compatibility aims to include most PlayStation 4 games
https://www.digitaltrends.c... a simple google search before you start calling someone childish for pointing out facts.

1020d ago
Show all comments (32)