How do you guys feel about the next generation of consoles?

[kedawa]

There's a thread like this for every generation. Even going back to the NES days, you can find people in the Letters to the Editor section of EGM saying they won't be upgrading to 16 bit because the NES suits them fine. Of course, it never happens that way, and everybody ends up upgrading anyway.

It's true that there are always going to be people that are perfectly content with what they already have, but that doesn't seem to be what's driving people away this time.

You could skip the Genesis because you're happy with your NES, since one is just an incremental improvement over the other. It's just more of the same.
With the next generation, it's not more of the same, it's less of the same with a bunch of superfluous features and hostile business practices thrown into the mix.
There are a lot of gamers that have a strong dislike for where the industry is going, and I think they're entirely justified.

[Lerxstnj]

Just curious - why not?

Well, "Never" is too strong a word, so I take that back.
As of now I don't see any games that interest me on Nintendo systems.
And it's not just Nintendo, I feel that way about Kinect also.
The Gamecube, which I still play, may possibly be the last Nintendo system for me.
Overall, still interested to see what next gen brings.

[duffmanth]

I believe all of the next gen consoles will still have disc drives and physical games will still be the norm, but digital downloading/streaming will definitely become more common. Going totally digital/streaming isn't realistic at this point for many reasons including ISP's putting caps on people's data usage, the awful fucking slowness of downloading full console games, the amount of room they take up on your hard drive, and most gamers I know at least are collectors and much prefer physical games. That being said I'm looking forward to the next gen of consoles, especially Sony and to a lesser extent MS. I still have a fair size backlog of games I haven't played or finished, but I'm always excited to see what the next gen has in store. I just hope console manufacturers get gaming consoles back to just being about gaming and stop with the social media, motion sensing and streaming shit. All I want is a reliable system with great games!

[Trumpman]

I can't wait for the new generation. The trailers for Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs have me incredibly excited for the power of the new consoles. This generation has lasted longer than most, which has been good and bad. We've had a huge amount of absolutely great games, most of which you can now get at very low prices, but the downside is that the graphics on the 360 and PS3 are really looking worse for wear.

Also, to all of you complaining about "media centers", I can't be the only one who enjoys using my Xbox to watch Netflix, or MLB, or now the NHL or NBA.

[kedawa]

There are people that use that stuff and people that don't.
For those that don't, it's a problem because the focus of the console is shifting away from the one thing they do use it for.

I already have a general purpose device that can play games, and it does everything better than any console can, so a set-top box just isn't for me.

[j_factor]

Also, to all of you complaining about "media centers", I can't be the only one who enjoys using my Xbox to watch Netflix, or MLB, or now the NHL or NBA.

Is Xbox 360 your only console?

I have always been a multi-console gamer. It seems awfully redundant to have more than one "media center".

[otaku]

I'm excited for the wii u though I'm worried about the price I can't afford to spend like I used to so I will have to wait a while. xbox 720 sounds like it will have a good price but at the cost of not being able to play used games which really sucks

[The 1 2 P]

Also, to all of you complaining about "media centers", I can't be the only one who enjoys using my Xbox to watch Netflix, or MLB, or now the NHL or NBA.

As I stated on the first page, the biggest change this gen for me is that I now use my 360 to watch atleast 10 hours of videos every week thru the various apps available. Thats one change to the dashboard that I actually enjoyed this time.

I have always been a multi-console gamer. It seems awfully redundant to have more than one "media center".

I have all three current gen systems but only use one for my media center. And while it may be redundant, you could say the same thing about all of them being able to play dvds(minus the Wii). My 360, PS3, Xbox, and import PS2 are all currently hooked up and all four can play dvds and cds as well as games(of course). But it really doesn't bother me that they all have identical features. I obviously won't be using every one of them for those purposes but it's more of a bonus.

[BHvrd]

I am expecting some Pokemons in HD and to hear them in glorious True HD sound......I better not be disappointed...

[j_factor]

I have all three current gen systems but only use one for my media center. And while it may be redundant, you could say the same thing about all of them being able to play dvds(minus the Wii). My 360, PS3, Xbox, and import PS2 are all currently hooked up and all four can play dvds and cds as well as games(of course). But it really doesn't bother me that they all have identical features. I obviously won't be using every one of them for those purposes but it's more of a bonus.

It doesn't necessarily "bother me" per se, but when I already have at least one console with media center features, "look at all the media capabilities!" is not going to make me want to buy another console. I might buy it for other reasons anyway, but that is not a selling point.

[Gamevet]

I have all three current gen systems but only use one for my media center. And while it may be redundant, you could say the same thing about all of them being able to play dvds(minus the Wii). My 360, PS3, Xbox, and import PS2 are all currently hooked up and all four can play dvds and cds as well as games(of course). But it really doesn't bother me that they all have identical features. I obviously won't be using every one of them for those purposes but it's more of a bonus.

You don't watch Blu-Ray?

I rarely watch DVD, unless it is the only option available, like The King of Kong.

I started out using Netflix on my 360, but the streaming quality would change too often. I started using my PS3 for Netflix and never went back.

[The 1 2 P]

You don't watch Blu-Ray?

Not really. I have a very huge collection of dvds and I haven't even watched them all yet. The few times I've won blurays or dvd+bluray compilations I've always just sold them.

[TonyTheTiger]

Is Xbox 360 your only console?

I have always been a multi-console gamer. It seems awfully redundant to have more than one "media center".

It's because they aren't supposed to be redundant. These things are advertised in a way that implies you can take every electronic device you own, throw it all away, leaving yourself with nothing but a TV and console X and not miss out on anything. Now we all know that's unrealistic. But that's what the marketing is trying to get people to buy into.

The era of "Genesis does what Nintendon't" gave way to "our machine does everything, period, so just pretend nothing else exists."

[sheath]

I only bought a 360 because Gears of War was something I wanted to play on the mainstream front and XBLA looked like it was going to be a true hard core revival for gaming. The fact that I paid for it with $50 cash after a little trade action didn't hurt either. The current generation of "all-in-wonder" consoles really ended up disappointing me, but not as much as the direction all of the megapublishers went thanks to gamers having no taste in anything but cruddy "story" games.

In this boredom I have built and upgraded my HTPC several times and find myself waiting to get the PC version of any game that manages to come out with any interest to me, when I'm not picking up and playing games on actual game consoles that is. The only thing I'm seeing about the next generation of consoles is more of the same. Meaning they will expect me to stick with the same hardware for eight years or more and just deal with the incremental software upgrades and gimmicks.

[Gamevet]

Not really. I have a very huge collection of dvds and I haven't even watched them all yet. The few times I've won blurays or dvd+bluray compilations I've always just sold them.

DVD is just horrible. The color range is crappy, the backgrounds are blurry and during action scenes everything pixelates badly.

My sister-in-law gave me The Dark Knight on DVD for Christmas. It was almost painful to watch the armored car scene, when the explosions were nothing but a pixelated mess. I sold the disc and waited for a $5 copy on Blu-Ray. I'd rented Transfomers on DVD and was appalled at the quality of the scenes in the desert; The sand was a lifeless (blurry) shade of light brown. I'd later get the movie on HD-DVD, noticing the beautiful gradiant shading of the sand and people with realistic skin tones.

There's nothing wrong about keeping your old DVD collection (I still have 30 or so movies on VHS), but I'd highly recommend buying your favorites on Blu-Ray. The 5th Element begs to be seen with all of the quality of the theatrical release.

Do you own a HD television?

[Gameguy]

DVD is just horrible. The color range is crappy, the backgrounds are blurry and during action scenes everything pixelates badly.

Have you tried watching them on a CRT SD television instead of upscaling them to a resolution they were never designed to be played at?

[sheath]

I buy DVDs of lots of movies. On my 40" LCD the difference is noticeable between HD-DVD/Bluray and DVD, but I don't find it huge enough to even pay twice as much for the Bluray version these days. The HD-DVD versions are usually cheaper than the Bluray versions thanks again to marketing.

The only difference I can notice in most movies over Netflix, DVD, Bluray or HD-DVD is an increase in audio and video sharpness in the later two. That difference requires significant attention to notice, and I have also noticed that the supposedly superior 3D movies take it all away again for a simple effect.

[j_factor]

DVD is just horrible. The color range is crappy, the backgrounds are blurry and during action scenes everything pixelates badly.

My sister-in-law gave me The Dark Knight on DVD for Christmas. It was almost painful to watch the armored car scene, when the explosions were nothing but a pixelated mess. I sold the disc and waited for a $5 copy on Blu-Ray. I'd rented Transfomers on DVD and was appalled at the quality of the scenes in the desert; The sand was a lifeless (blurry) shade of light brown. I'd later get the movie on HD-DVD, noticing the beautiful gradiant shading of the sand and people with realistic skin tones.

There's nothing wrong about keeping your old DVD collection (I still have 30 or so movies on VHS), but I'd highly recommend buying your favorites on Blu-Ray. The 5th Element begs to be seen with all of the quality of the theatrical release.

Blu-ray is great for action and sci-fi flicks. But a lot of my favorite movies are basically just a bunch of talking heads. If I already have Mallrats on DVD, I don't really see any need to replace it with the Blu-ray version.

[Gamevet]

Have you tried watching them on a CRT SD television instead of upscaling them to a resolution they were never designed to be played at?

Yeah! My first DVD was The Matrix. Even on a 27" Sony Trinitron, I'd noticed that the dark scenes had blocky backgrounds.

My first HD set (CRT) was a 32" Sony KV-32HS420 (I still use the set in my gameroom/office) that I'd bought in 2004. My first experience with Blu-Ray was with this set and a PS3. The colors just popped on the screen and there was no longer any blocky backgrounds.

Still, why would you pay for a HD set, only to use it for low-resoloution content? It's like buying a Corvette, putting 87 octane fuel in the tank and never taking the car past 70 mph. Why did you even waste your cash, if you aren't going to use the item for what it was meant to do?

Blu-ray is great for action and sci-fi flicks. But a lot of my favorite movies are basically just a bunch of talking heads. If I already have Mallrats on DVD, I don't really see any need to replace it with the Blu-ray version.

Yeah, you don't replace a movie like Mallrats, but a movie like The Lord of The Rings, with its intense battle sequences, benefits heavily from a format like MPEG-4. If you have a nice DTS surround sound system, it's also a plus for a movie with a lot of explosions and sword sounds happening around you.

[Gamereviewgod]

The next generation can't come soon enough. As someone who has played just about everything this generation has to offer, it's become an overlong bore fest. Too many engines are being recycled, too many assets are being reused, and too many ideas are repeated. It's not so much the financial limitations on the dev side as it that every single game feels exactly like something else because it's sharing the backbone of the product that preceded it. Hard to be excited when everything "new" plays exactly like something old.

New, more powerful physics will shake things up dramatically, as well as a visual boost. It will be fantastic to have the next gen Xbox/PS have uncompressed audio across the board (many PS3 titles do now). Physics open up a lot of doors in terms of gameplay and of course feel.

[Gamereviewgod]

Yeah, you don't replace a movie like Mallrats, but a movie like The Lord of The Rings, with its intense battle sequences, benefits heavily from a format like MPEG-4. If you have a nice DTS surround sound system, it's also a plus for a movie with a lot of explosions and sword sounds happening around you.

Even something like Mallrats is worth a Blu-ray boost. I'd be hard pressed to find a movie that doesn't benefit. The sheer fidelity in a properly transferred disc is truly remarkable, even for what many would consider a visually minor film like Mallrats. Compression artifacts, even if they do exist on Blu-ray to a much smaller degree, are a remnant of a bygone era. On a properly calibrated set, watching a DVD is a tough proposition once you spoil yourself.

[Gameguy]

Yeah! My first DVD was The Matrix. Even on a 27" Sony Trinitron, I'd noticed that the dark scenes had blocky backgrounds.

Some DVDs weren't mastered properly so they look terrible, it's not necessarily a problem with the format as a whole. The DVD version of Heat looks terrible too, they compressed a 3 hour movie onto a single sided, single layer disc. Personally I want DVDs to hold up so currently unreleased films and TV shows can get released on that format, with Blurays studios are focusing on releasing already available material in a new format instead of focusing on releasing new material. I'm not really interested in just rebuying the same stuff over and over again.

Are Bluray players compatible with SD TVs? I know there's some films with a much better release on Bluray compared to DVD, such as The Last Unicorn. The DVD version is mastered at the wrong speed, the Bluray version fixed this as well as every other problem with it. I'm more interested in animation lately so I'm focusing on these types of films.

[The 1 2 P]

DVD is just horrible. The color range is crappy, the backgrounds are blurry and during action scenes everything pixelates badly.

Maybe you just need glasses. I don't notice those kinds of problems in the majority of dvds I watch. That sounds like something related to either older dvds or ones where companies phoned-in their vhs to dvd movie upgraded versions with nothing but the actual movie and a trailer.

Do you own a HD television?

Yup, a 32 inch lcd. The picture quality is great when playing my dvds. I've seen bluray movies at stores and friends houses and although theres a little better picture quality in some of the movies it isn't noticable enough for me to even comptemplate replacing my dvds with blurays. I have a few bluray trailers(that I still haven't watched) and eventually I may pick up a bluray or two but for now my dvds are more than adequate for me.

[Rob2600]

Maybe you just need glasses. I don't notice those kinds of problems in the majority of dvds I watch. That sounds like something related to either older dvds or ones where companies phoned-in their vhs to dvd movie upgraded versions

Gamevet is correct. Once I knew what DVD compression artifacts to look for and when to look for them, I notice them all the time. DVDs are still great and totally watchable, but they have limited storage and bandwidth.

It's better when a DVD only has the movie on it and no special features, so the movie itself has the maximum available bandwidth.

I hate when a studio squeezes a movie, plus two hours of bonus material, onto one DVD. Every minute of bonus content causes the main movie to have more and more compression artifacts.

[Bojay1997]

Yeah! My first DVD was The Matrix. Even on a 27" Sony Trinitron, I'd noticed that the dark scenes had blocky backgrounds.

My first HD set (CRT) was a 32" Sony KV-32HS420 (I still use the set in my gameroom/office) that I'd bought in 2004. My first experience with Blu-Ray was with this set and a PS3. The colors just popped on the screen and there was no longer any blocky backgrounds.

Still, why would you pay for a HD set, only to use it for low-resoloution content? It's like buying a Corvette, putting 87 octane fuel in the tank and never taking the car past 70 mph. Why did you even waste your cash, if you aren't going to use the item for what it was meant to do?

Yeah, you don't replace a movie like Mallrats, but a movie like The Lord of The Rings, with its intense battle sequences, benefits heavily from a format like MPEG-4. If you have a nice DTS surround sound system, it's also a plus for a movie with a lot of explosions and sword sounds happening around you.

I have a very nice Sony XBR 3D HDTV as well as a nice Blu Ray player, but I have to agree with the DVD advocates here and say that the difference between a Blu Ray version and a DVD version of most titles is noticeable, but not necessarily compelling enough to force me to upgrade my movie library. Heck, many of us watch the majority of our content from cable or satellite anyway and that sure is compressed to all heck. There are also poorly done Blu Rays out there, so it really does vary by the individual piece of content. At least Blu Ray prices have started to come down to the old DVD level, but I still get annoyed when new Blu Ray 3D releases come out at $30 and force me to buy multiple versions (i.e. a DVD and digital download) I will never use.