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

[Panzerfuzion]

Specifically the new XBOX and Playstation, if the rumors are true and they end up being mainly digital distribution systems with the possibility of a physical copies of said game tied into one console and one use only. Will you purchase the next generation systems as collectors? I'm leaning into packing it in after this gen, with a large library of games spanning decades over multiple consoles and getting older as I am and simply not caring about graphics anymore I just don't see myself investing into another gen with such a large collection at my disposal. I've personally noticed that I've played the least amount of games this generation over any other past generations of systems. I also see myself going back to older games almost as a reliving the past/nostalgia feeling with little desire of getting into newer games. I notice when i do pick up a new current gen game I get bored very fast.

Just a question i had for other people on here that have invested a good amount of there time and money into physical copies of games and there opinion on the future of digital distributions.

[o.pwuaioc]

Specifically the new XBOX and Playstation, if the rumors are true and they end up being mainly digital distribution systems with the possibility of a physical copies of said game tied into one console and one use only. Will you purchase the next generation systems as collectors? I'm leaning into packing it in after this gen, with a large library of games spanning decades over multiple consoles and getting older as I am and simply not caring about graphics anymore I just don't see myself investing into another gen with such a large collection at my disposal. I've personally noticed that I've played the least amount of games this generation over any other past generations of systems. I also see myself going back to older games almost as a reliving the past/nostalgia feeling with little desire of getting into newer games. I notice when i do pick up a new current gen game I get bored very fast.

Just a question i had for other people on here that have invested a good amount of there time and money into physical copies of games and there opinion on the future of digital distributions.

I'd just switch over to Steam and wait for the price to drop. I've pretty much already done that, as I bought Oblivion for dirt cheap, and I don't even own any current gen stuff. I will probably eventually get all three systems, but because the list of games I want for them are short (only really shmups for the 360, less than 10 titles for the other two), a digital-only model and the Wii-U's new funky "game pad" a insta-turn-offs for me. When I have more memory in my PC than all three current gen systems put together, you'd have to wonder why I'd want to get them at all.

[BetaWolf47]

Microsoft debunked the rumor about being digital only. The new Xbox will have a disc drive.

That said, I do agree with your sentiments. I got a Wii at launch, and played it very little compared to Gamecube and N64. I just don't have any interest in today's games besides stuff besides sequels to last-gen games. It feels as if all games are trying to be more realistic and less creative nowadays. Am considering a Wii U, but if it ends up just being the same as Wii, except with more Assassin's Creed, I don't see the point. Might as well just stick to NES/Master System through Gamecube/PS2 and be happy with it.

[Bojay1997]

I go back and forth about them. On the one hand, I think I am probably more of a collector now than I am a gamer. On the other hand, there are some games this generation that I found to be incredibly moving and fun to play. I'm hoping that Sony and MS are going to do more than create essentially gimped PCs with controllers this generation. I know Nintendo is at least trying something new, so succeed or fail, I am going to pick up a WiiU just because I am always curious about new approaches to interaction.

[wiggyx]

If it's digital only or the discs are married to the console, then I'm out. Fuck that noise. I can play Super Mario World and Zelda III 'til the end of time and I'll still be happy. Plus, I've got a pretty big backlog at this point. I'll just play my new, old games if need be :)

[The 1 2 P]

I really enjoyed this gen, especially since it's lasted so long. I was really tired of that every 5 year bullshit. And as much as I hate to say this, I kind of wish that Microsoft's and Sony's next systems have upgradable ram. That way the gen could last even longer and the power could stay consistant with the times. I know, thats almost like making them completely into gaming pc's but I still prefer to game on consoles and thats not going to change. But what does need to change is the constant need to upgrade the hard drive or newer controller model, etc. I think if they could do some sort of ram upgrade it would alleviate alot of issues. But then again it may cause just as many new ones. So they also better bug test the hell out of the new systems.

As far as going back to older systems to play, I still have my Xbox, import PS2, Saturn and 3DO hooked up to my tv. Time permitting I try to play them as much as possible. I will never fall for the "older games and systems were better" arguement. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and I enjoy them each in different ways. And although I have found myself with far more life responsibilites this generations then past gens I still play my systems just as much. The one thing that has changed is that I no longer just use my system for gaming. I watch atleast 10 hours of videos every week on my 360 with the various streaming apps and even check out the music ones from time to time. So now my gaming time has to share time with my video time but I really don't mind because it just means I spend less time watching actual tv programming and I really don't miss that at all.

[The 1 2 P]

If it's digital only

It won't be. Both Microsoft and Sony have already stated their next systems will have disc drives.

[o.pwuaioc]

It won't be. Both Microsoft and Sony have already stated their next systems will have disc drives.

My money's on the games being tied to the system, implemented like, e.g. CoD:MW2 for the PC.


On the other hand, there are some games this generation that I found to be incredibly moving and fun to play.

Which ones?

[Panzerfuzion]

Another rumor I heard was that the next gen systems (excluding the wii-u) would have to always be connected to that systems online service to be playable. Not something I look to favorable on as a consumer. While I've never had the mindset that the past iterations of consoles are better then the current gen systems, I simply try to avoid that getting older cynical attitude. I have noticed the older I've got (32) like I mentioned in my original post I tend to go back and play the older systems for nostalgia as much as the gameplay. So that might be a possible reason why I'm so willing to move on from next gen consoles. I do share a sentiment with o.pwuaioc in that I might end up switching to PC gaming next gen if i get the itch to play a next gen title. Having built my current PC in 2008 it might be time for an upgrade next year.

[Dr. BaconStein]

I don't really have any interest or hope in the next generation of consoles. You can call me a pretentious hipster retard for it, but I do believe digital (specifically smart device and PC) is the future of gaming. The only new game systems I'm interested in are clone consoles and Android-based systems, the latter I can see becoming mainstream someday in the future. I really do think clones are the only "dedicated" game consoles left at this point, not that it's a bad thing, though it kind of annoys me when people use the whole "people only use game consoles to play games" thing. Obviously not true if they keep releasing apps and storage features for all major platforms.

If this generation taught me anything it's not to buy into the hype and not to early adopt. At least with clones (and Android systems) the games/apps are already there, and I don't have to wait for anything. No risk of being jipped out of cash (looking at you, 3DS) either.

[The 1 2 P]

Another rumor I heard was that the next gen systems (excluding the wii-u) would have to always be connected to that systems online service to be playable. Not something I look to favorable on as a consumer.

While I've also heard that rumor it isn't very likely to happen. Here in the US there are still areas that have no broadband access, equating to literally millions of people who wouldn't be able to play the new systems if a constant connection were required. Regardless of how cocky or sure of themselves they may have been in the past I don't think that either Sony or Microsoft want to be the first to make this move, atleast not next gen.

[joshnickerson]

Will there still be Mario games on these new-fangled consoles?

Then yes.

[Lerxstnj]

Well, once they get the bugs out, over-heating issues, disk read errors, etc., then I'll consider if any new gens are worth getting.
I usually wait a full gen... Might get a PS3 when PS4 comes out and just got my 360 recently.
Sorry Nintendo, I will never buy a Wii, Wii-U, DS, 3DS, DS-U, etc.
And like others here, got plenty of backlog to keep me entertained for a long time.

[Trebuken]

We used to say it depends on the games. Nowadays I use my PS3 more for media (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime) and playing Blu-rays; it still plays games?

So the next gen is going to have to have great games at launch and media capabilities. The hardware inside these upcoming consoles seems likely to be farther behind current gen PC's than ever before. The only thing going for them is going to be the motion controllers and any other gimmicks they can manage.

I am looking forward to Wii-U. I like the idea of gaming with two screeens -- the notion that the TV will only have gameplay, and the score and health info can be on your controller. We're going to see some hardcore titles on Wii-U so it is already distancing itself from the Wii's insane number of childrens fair.

Clearly Sony and Microsoft are witholding any info on the new consoles so people will not stop buying current gen material, the profit from which will likely be needed by them to launch the next gen.

[o.pwuaioc]

Sorry Nintendo, I will never buy a Wii, Wii-U, DS, 3DS, DS-U, etc.
And like others here, got plenty of backlog to keep me entertained for a long time.

Just curious - why not?

[kedawa]

I'm out, but it has nothing to do with the distribution model.
Consoles have been drifting into set-top box territory for the last decade, and I just have no use for that, or the extraneous social media horse shit for that matter.
Pile on DLC, multiplayer lock-out, motion control/creepy camera nonsense, and supposedly underwhelming hardware, and I just can't stomach it anymore.

I love my PC more every day.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

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.

[ifkz]

Specifically the new XBOX and Playstation, if the rumors are true and they end up being mainly digital distribution systems with the possibility of a physical copies of said game tied into one console and one use only. Will you purchase the next generation systems as collectors? I'm leaning into packing it in after this gen, with a large library of games spanning decades over multiple consoles and getting older as I am and simply not caring about graphics anymore I just don't see myself investing into another gen with such a large collection at my disposal. I've personally noticed that I've played the least amount of games this generation over any other past generations of systems. I also see myself going back to older games almost as a reliving the past/nostalgia feeling with little desire of getting into newer games. I notice when i do pick up a new current gen game I get bored very fast.

Just a question i had for other people on here that have invested a good amount of there time and money into physical copies of games and there opinion on the future of digital distributions.

+1, my thoughts exactly. I have a Vita that I can play during breaks, this may be "it" for me and the next gen, at least until a few years and hardware redesigns later. I have a ton of great games backlogged on the PS3 and 360.

[Skullkid]

I hope if gaming goes digital, we still have NG devopment team,Time Walk Games, Atariage, Good Deal Games, Songbird, Ect. to give us physical games for our older systems.

[kupomogli]

I really enjoyed this gen, especially since it's lasted so long. I was really tired of that every 5 year bullshit. And as much as I hate to say this, I kind of wish that Microsoft's and Sony's next systems have upgradable ram. That way the gen could last even longer and the power could stay consistant with the times. I know, thats almost like making them completely into gaming pc's but I still prefer to game on consoles and thats not going to change. But what does need to change is the constant need to upgrade the hard drive or newer controller model, etc. I think if they could do some sort of ram upgrade it would alleviate alot of issues. But then again it may cause just as many new ones. So they also better bug test the hell out of the new systems.

As far as going back to older systems to play, I still have my Xbox, import PS2, Saturn and 3DO hooked up to my tv. Time permitting I try to play them as much as possible. I will never fall for the "older games and systems were better" arguement. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and I enjoy them each in different ways. And although I have found myself with far more life responsibilites this generations then past gens I still play my systems just as much. The one thing that has changed is that I no longer just use my system for gaming. I watch atleast 10 hours of videos every week on my 360 with the various streaming apps and even check out the music ones from time to time. So now my gaming time has to share time with my video time but I really don't mind because it just means I spend less time watching actual tv programming and I really don't miss that at all.

This.

While I always say this gen is the worst, I do own 70 PS3 games, over 90 PSP games, over 90 DS games, and two Wii games. Probably a little less than a third of those are unplayed, the other portion of those have been played and I usually sell the games I don't like, so very few games I still currently own are games that I don't like. Honestly, this gen may not have many of my favorite RPGs or platformers, my two favorite genres, but as a fan of video games, I can't very well deny that between all consoles, both home console and handheld, that there aren't hundreds of titles that I've enjoyed enough to want to keep in my collection. So this gen has succeeded.

For the start of the next gen, just like this gen, the Vita and 3DS have been slow burners. Uncharted Golden Abyss and Wipeout 2048 are amazing and the 3DS, well, it doesn't have anything I like too much outside of Mario Kart 7 and I'm already bored of that. There are other games coming soon to both Vita and 3DS I'm interested in. Heroes of Ruin for the 3DS, but SMT5 was also announced to be coming on the console and that's always nice. The Vita has Warrior's Ruin, a few PS3/Vita multiconsole titles I'm interested in like Guacamelee, Playstation All Stars, and Dragon's Crown(all of which I'm getting on the PS3 if it applies,) Gravity Rush(already out though,) Soul Sacrifice, and Ragnarok Odyssey.

As long as the games continue to be as good or better as they are in this gen, and the fact that Microsoft and Sony have already announced that they're still using physical content, then I welcome the next gen. I probably won't buy day one, but once some good titles start coming out, I'll pick them up. It'll give me time to clear my backlog. Being that I passed up the Wii this gen, I'm purchasing the Wii U, but it's not going to be anytime soon and more than likely after the PS4. I'll also pick up the 720 if it's backwards compatible with 360 games, because there are some games that are exclusive or may as well be exclusive that I want for the 360, and since PC has DRM out the ass now days as all games you buy are either through Steam or whatever, Skyrim to me is a 360 exclusive.

[substantial_snake]

I'm interested in seeing weather Sony goes with a new controller design this generation or not. :p

The rise of always-online for genera that have no need for it, along with intrusive DRM were two of the things that largely pushed me away from PC gaming and am a concerned with seeing the same thing happen to the next generation of consoles. However as long as consoles retain their relative ease of use and deliver on the games front then I will probably buy a next gen console. It comes down to the games first though and if the next gen delivers the way this one has then I'll definitely be a supporter.

[BetaWolf47]

I'm out, but it has nothing to do with the distribution model.
Consoles have been drifting into set-top box territory for the last decade, and I just have no use for that, or the extraneous social media horse shit for that matter.
Pile on DLC, multiplayer lock-out, motion control/creepy camera nonsense, and supposedly underwhelming hardware, and I just can't stomach it anymore.

I love my PC more every day.
This. This times infinity. Especially the social media crap. To be fair though, console hardware has always been underwhelming compared to PC hardware. I'll probably get a 3DS, but as far as anything else, I might be done buying home consoles.

[Andy]

I've generally been a console gamer with a usually outdated PC on the side, but I think I'm going to be increasingly drifting toward PC more heavily from here on out. I have an Xbox 360 and while I've enjoyed it, I have the least amount of games for that system that I've ever bought for a console, whereas with the PC I'm practically drowning in games to catch up on. I'm also probably one of the few people that own the system that's never seen much of a need for Xbox Live, so if Microsoft (or anyone else) is thinking of tying their new system to online gaming, I'm definitely out.

[j_factor]

If any of these rumors are true about required online, no used games, or any of that, I have zero interest in whatever system(s) that applies to.

Even aside from that, though, my interest in a new gen is pretty minimal. The game industry is getting a lot more annoying lately and I only see it getting worse.

[BydoEmpire]

No interest, don't see myself buying any next-gen console.

[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...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m59wbrXzmA1qgjhwz.jpg

[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.

[kupomogli]

I can count the amount of Blurays I own on my fingers, so very small list, each one I also own the DVD for except for the Dark Knight, and the quality of the Bluray movies, while slightly noticeable, doesn't look an extraordinarily better than the DVD movies upscaled. The main thing I notice between Bluray and DVD for the most part are facial imperfections are more clear, where on DVD it's not as noticeable.

[The 1 2 P]

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.

I understand that some of us are alittle more nitpicky about that stuff but the things I have sporatically noticed while watching dvds has never been so intrusive that it ruined my viewing experience.


DVDs are still great and totally watchable, but they have limited storage and bandwidth.

For me this would be more of a problem for video games on dvds. I don't mind if a game has an extra disc or two because it needs the extra space. But next gen both Sony and Microsoft will be using blurays for game storage so that will no longer be an issue. I'm not sure what Nintendo will be using for the Wii U but I doubt it will be bluray.

[Gameguy]

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.
Do you watch DVDs on an SD TV? I know about artifacts and even when looking for them I rarely notice them with most DVDs. Even when I convert AVI files to DVD I don't notice problems too often, sometimes with black backgrounds I notice problems but these are usually with DVDs I converted myself and crammed a large amount of footage onto one single layer disc. You'll notice more problems with artifacts when upscaling or zooming DVDs, that's what I notice with reviewers who either praise a transfer for looking great even when zoomed 8X or trashing a master for noticable defects when upscalled. I usually read detailed reviews before buying a DVD so I know what to expect with them, it's why I avoided The Last Unicorn DVD release even though it was in bargin bins for $5(for $1-$2 I'll pick it up).

By bandwidth I'm assuming you mean bitrate, usually the higher the bitrate the better quality the video looks but there's an acceptible range where you really won't notice much of a difference. There used to be a series of DVDs released as Superbit titles designed to have the highest bitrate possible with no extras, but few people bought these so they stopped making them.

A single layer disc can hold around 2 hours of footage before the quality deteriorates, now with dual layer discs 4 hours of footage can be fit on one disc. Most of the early discs with problems came out before dual layer discs, this was back when pan and scan discs were still common and DVDs were minor upgrades compared to VHS releases. It really depends on the quality of the transfer, a lot of DVD releases just used already existing masters instead of transfering from the original film source to make a new restored master in DVD quality video. A lot of it has to do with cost, it's more expensive to do with older film sources so a lot of older films(or TV shows) look bad. The same goes with Bluray titles, now a lot are making new transfers so they're looking much better than the older DVD ones but a lot are still just using old masters and only look slightly better than the existing DVD releases.

[Tupin]

I understand that some of us are alittle more nitpicky about that stuff but the things I have sporatically noticed while watching dvds has never been so intrusive that it ruined my viewing experience.



For me this would be more of a problem for video games on dvds. I don't mind if a game has an extra disc or two because it needs the extra space. But next gen both Sony and Microsoft will be using blurays for game storage so that will no longer be an issue. I'm not sure what Nintendo will be using for the Wii U but I doubt it will be bluray.
Nintendo is using a proprietary format that can have 25GB per layer. Not Blu-Ray, because they don't want to have to pay the licensing fees per console to allow movie playback.

[Gamevet]

Do you watch DVDs on an SD TV? I know about artifacts and even when looking for them I rarely notice them with most DVDs.




I understand that some of us are a little more nitpicky about that stuff but the things I have sporatically noticed while watching dvds has never been so intrusive that it ruined my viewing experience.



It's not just slightly better visuals guys. Blu-Ray also brings lossless DTS HD surround, while DVD doesn't. The color range is also much better, because the information isn't compressed for MPEG-2 playback.

Look at the Matrix as an example. These 2 screenshots were taken from my 52" Samsung LCD, using the PS3 with both movies. The DVD loses a lot of the color green, that the Wachowski brothers emphasised in the film, to show when the characters were in the Matrix. You can also see the sound sample rate and the total size of the media stream for each format.

DVD may be fine for your current setup The 1 2 P, but you also have to take into consideration that one day you might be able to afford a very nice (large) display and a nice surround setup as well. Yeah, you may have saved a few dollars here and there buying the DVD version of a movie, but wouldn't you like to hear and see all of the enhancements the better format would offer you once you had a setup that took advantage of it?




The Matrix DVD (http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/Gamevet/MatrixDVD.jpg)

The Matrix Blu-Ray (http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/Gamevet/MatrixBlu.jpg)





A single layer disc can hold around 2 hours of footage before the quality deteriorates, now with dual layer discs 4 hours of footage can be fit on one disc. Most of the early discs with problems came out before dual layer discs, this was back when pan and scan discs were still common and DVDs were minor upgrades compared to VHS releases. It really depends on the quality of the transfer, a lot of DVD releases just used already existing masters instead of transfering from the original film source to make a new restored master in DVD quality video. A lot of it has to do with cost, it's more expensive to do with older film sources so a lot of older films(or TV shows) look bad. The same goes with Bluray titles, now a lot are making new transfers so they're looking much better than the older DVD ones but a lot are still just using old masters and only look slightly better than the existing DVD releases.



Yeah, the first Blu-Ray movies were hit and miss with quality, as was DVD when it came out. I bought the Running Man on Blu-Ray, with hopes that if would be a huge improvement over the SPecial Edition DVD I have of the movie. They didn't remaster anything and even the sound is pretty flat. That's why I'm not buying Total Recall on Blu-Ray either, because I've heard they pretty much did the same with that title.

I don't buy a lot of movies these days, but when I do, I make sure that the studio behind the movie actually put the effort behind the film, when they transferred it to Blu-Ray. One thing is for sure with new movies though, they'll transfer to Blu-Ray with little effort, now that everyone is using Digital cameras when making those films.

[werejag]

im interested in wiiu a bit

[Gameguy]

It's not just slightly better visuals guys. Blu-Ray also brings lossless DTS HD surround, while DVD doesn't. The color range is also much better, because the information isn't compressed for MPEG-2 playback.

Look at the Matrix as an example. These 2 screenshots were taken from my 52" Samsung LCD, using the PS3 with both movies. The DVD loses a lot of the color green, that the Wachowski brothers emphasised in the film, to show when the characters were in the Matrix. You can also see the sound sample rate and the total size of the media stream for each format.
I didn't pay attention to audio that much as I don't use external speakers, but I guess that would be something to consider if you had a sound system.

The colours in The Matrix do look off with the DVD version, but I think they just didn't colour correct it properly. This came out on DVD in 1999. It may be a reason to get the Bluray release over the DVD version but I don't think it's because of the DVD format. I know of several other DVDs with off looking colours. For the North American version of Cardcaptor Sakura one of the characters' hair colour looks purple when it should be black, but this isn't a problem on the Japanese DVDs as the colour was done properly for their release. The picture was also less cropped in their version compared to ours. There's also Project A-Ko, the film has at least 3 different releases in North America on DVD and the colours are different in each version.

I'll post another example of The Plague Dogs taken from this site;
http://animatedviews.com/2006/watershipped-rabbits-and-plagued-dogs-the-animated-world-of-richard-adams/

http://i48.tinypic.com/2uruu1e.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/351bs4z.jpg

The screenshots on the left are from the North American DVD release, the screenshots on the right are from the Australian DVD release. The colours weren't corrected for the Australian release, it was transfered from a different film print and wasn't restored properly(it would cost money). The Australian version is still better as it's uncut at 103 minutes(sped up to 99 minutes due to PAL conversion) compared to the North American version at 85, I just really wish this film had a proper restoration and release in North America.


As for colour range, I think you're a bit confused about it. Standard DVDs and Blurays have the same colour range, they're all YCbCr 16-235 range native. You're probably thinking of colour depth, with standard displays having an 8-bit colour depth and new displays being capable of up to 16-bit colour depth. Even though displays are capable of displaying such a high depth, Blurays are still only capable of 8-bit depth(like DVDs), they won't take advantage of the full capabilities of a deep colour display. Unless you were referring to something else, maybe chroma subsampling?

http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/calibrate-your-system/hdmi-black-levels-xvycc-rgb
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171223/what_is_10bit_color.html

[Gamevet]

I didn't pay attention to audio that much as I don't use external speakers, but I guess that would be something to consider if you had a sound system.

I've been using surround sound since 1992, with my first Pro-Logic receiver finally giving out about 3 years ago. I now have a 5.1 receiver, with the same 6 speakers ($1,000 worth) I started with in 92. Sound is just as important to me, as the picture.



The colours in The Matrix do look off with the DVD version, but I think they just didn't colour correct it properly. This came out on DVD in 1999. It may be a reason to get the Bluray release over the DVD version but I don't think it's because of the DVD format. I know of several other DVDs with off looking colours. For the North American version of Cardcaptor Sakura one of the characters' hair colour looks purple when it should be black, but this isn't a problem on the Japanese DVDs as the colour was done properly for their release. The picture was also less cropped in their version compared to ours. There's also Project A-Ko, the film has at least 3 different releases in North America on DVD and the colours are different in each version.

I've noticed that most DVDs don't have a lot of color depth. You can only fit so much data within a dual-layer disc. The Matrix is a dual-layer disc and it uses the MPEG-2 format, so it's not like MPEG-2 got better with later releases.



As for colour range, I think you're a bit confused about it. Standard DVDs and Blurays have the same colour range, they're all YCbCr 16-235 range native. You're probably thinking of colour depth, with standard displays having an 8-bit colour depth and new displays being capable of up to 16-bit colour depth. Even though displays are capable of displaying such a high depth, Blurays are still only capable of 8-bit depth(like DVDs), they won't take advantage of the full capabilities of a deep colour display. Unless you were referring to something else, maybe chroma subsampling?

http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/calibrate-your-system/hdmi-black-levels-xvycc-rgb
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171223/what_is_10bit_color.html


It's not the color range that is the problem, it's in the way MPEG-2 compression works, by recycling images and colors to save space and stay within the available stream size.


http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6463_7-6462511-2.html



Beyond resolution, Blu-ray also uses better video-compression methods, resulting in more contrast and richer colors. If you like the way HD from your cable or satellite provider looks, Blu-ray looks even better. It's the highest-quality video format available today, and in some ways it surpasses the picture quality of your local movie theater, especially when shown on a good-performing HDTV or projector.



Audio quality: Audio quality is also improved. New high-resolution soundtrack formats, such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, are essentially identical to the studio master, so you'll be hearing things exactly as the director and audio engineers intended.



http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6859904-1.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx



2. Can an upconverting DVD player really make a DVD movie look like a Blu-ray movie?

No. Compare a DVD to a Blu-ray movie on a TV that's 32 inches or smaller and the differences aren't huge. However, it's pretty easy to tell the two apart when you're watching on a larger set.

The basic issue is that the maximum resolution of DVD is 720x480 while Blu-ray is 1,920x1,080. The Blu-ray image is much larger and made up of more information than the DVD image, which is one reason your typical full-length high-definition movie just doesn't fit on a DVD disc and requires at least double or triple the storage space (some space is taken up by the audio).

I sometimes tell people it's similar to megapixels on a camera. If you take a picture that was shot on camera with a low-megapixel count (3 or 4 megapixels) and try to blow up (aka scale) the image to print out at 8x10 or larger, the resulting print can look soft or even fuzzy, no matter what sharpening tools you're using in Photoshop. (In fact, sometimes the sharpeners make the image look worse.)


We recently set up the highly rated Samsung PN50A550 50-inch plasma next to a Panasonic TH-46PZ80U 46-inch plasma and our Editors' Choice Pioneer PDP-5080HD 50-inch plasma. We hooked up a top-notch $400 Oppo DV-983H upconverting DVD player to the Samsung and had our PlayStation 3 Blu-ray player outputting video to the other two sets. For the test, we used the DVD and Blu-ray versions of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl and synced them on the TVs so they were virtually on the same frame. While the DVD version looked great for a DVD, it didn't measure up to the Blu-ray version. The Blu-ray exhibited significantly more detail and better color-saturation. In close-ups of character's faces, the differences in detail level and sharpness are smaller, but when you get into any scenes involving big depths of field (such as wide shots with sweeping backgrounds), the DVD images appear soft and less three-dimensional by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ-RhnonZyg

[The 1 2 P]

DVD may be fine for your current setup The 1 2 P, but you also have to take into consideration that one day you might be able to afford a very nice (large) display and a nice surround setup as well.

What makes you think I can't afford a larger display? I could go out and buy a 3D tv if I wanted but I'm not into wasting money and my current setup is perfect for me.


Yeah, you may have saved a few dollars here and there buying the DVD version of a movie, but wouldn't you like to hear and see all of the enhancements the better format would offer you once you had a setup that took advantage of it?

As I already stated I'm not as nitpicky as you. My tv setup is beyond fine, I like and prefer dvds over blurays and outside of some extra features that are included on the bluray versions of movies I'm really not missing much.

[Gamevet]

As I already stated I'm not as nitpicky as you. My tv setup is beyond fine, I like and prefer dvds over blurays and outside of some extra features that are included on the bluray versions of movies I'm really not missing much.

If you don't care that a film is being presented in a way that wasn't intended by the director, that's fine, some people hate letterbox on their 4:3 displays. You can call it nitpicking, I call it asking for theater quality movie viewing.

[kedawa]

I'm extremely picky about video quality in games, since being able to see details and text clearly is vital to playing the game, but for movies, even DVD is overkill for me.
I'm perfectly happy with the 700MB avi, and I don't feel I'm missing anything by not seeing every pore and strand of hair.

[Edmond Dantes]

I've seen "The Last Unicorn" mentioned a lot in this thread. Are we talking about the Rankin-Bass animated film or is there another one now?

Assuming animated, what's this about the DVD having problems? Keep in mind there are two Region 1 DVD releases--one was very low-budget and crap, but later came a "special edition" which is all over the place now and which, last I watched it, was practically perfect. So why are people saying it had problems?

[Gameguy]

I've seen "The Last Unicorn" mentioned a lot in this thread. Are we talking about the Rankin-Bass animated film or is there another one now?

Assuming animated, what's this about the DVD having problems? Keep in mind there are two Region 1 DVD releases--one was very low-budget and crap, but later came a "special edition" which is all over the place now and which, last I watched it, was practically perfect. So why are people saying it had problems?
The special edition release was taken from a German PAL master so it runs slightly too fast, a new transfer was made for the NTSC Bluray which corrects this problem. Plus the audio was slightly altered to censor some mild swearing, the original audio has been restored for the Bluray release. These are minor differences overall but these are the types of things I would nitpick over, not just a slight improvement in video quality like with most DVD/Bluray releases.

A review that compares the most recent DVD version to Bluray of The Last Unicorn;
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/47057/last-unicorn-the/

[Griking]

Has there been mention of the leaked 720 story around here yet?

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/leaked-document-points-to-299-xbox-720-for-2013/

While I'm not that eager to purchase a new console yet I'd be much more likely if these were true and the next Xbox was backward compatible.

[Mr Mort]

While it's difficult to say because nothing has been officially announced about the next-gen hardware, I think I may stop buying games and hardware with the current generation.

I feel as though I may be becoming a dinosaur, because I really don't like the direction the industry is going in.
I could go off on a tangent about the whole industry, but in a nutshell, gaming has become something more of a burden than it used to be.
You used to be able to buy a cartridge, pop it in your system, and it would start playing instantly. Those days are long gone. With the advent of DLC, online passes, EULA'S, DRM, annual sequels, and the shift to cloud-based or digital downloads instead of physical media, I feel like a lot of our freedom has been stripped away, a piece at a time. We are no longer purchasing video games, we are purchasing the right to play a video game, and I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with being told how, where, and how long I can play a game. I have a problem with having to buy my (complete) video game in pieces. I have a problem with having to create an online account or profile in order to play a single-player game.

As I said, I could go on for a while, but I simply don't like the direction the industry is heading in. I may very well change my tune once the new Xbox/PS are annoucned with their lineup, but I somehow doubt it. It's the industry as a whole I have a problem with. These are video games where talking about here, not a major business transaction. To place so much burden on gamers and the public directly contradicts the purpose of video games; for simple enjoyment and fun, not to agree to contracts, enter online pass codes, require a persistent internet connection, or charge us several times for DLC. I just want to pop a game in the console, and turn it on, and I won't be getting that again any time soon.

[Illuvatar]

Damn i really wish instead of a shitty 3rd person castlevania... they would make a GOOD sidescrolling one..i mean hell it could have awesome graphics and be 2D/3dish.. really hope for one. And not the one thats 2d for xbox, thats like playing a rpg.