Yeah, it is pretty pathetic that the closest thing we have to innovation is remaking old games...
Originally Posted by soldant
And I Don't think stagnating tech is the only limiting factor, but I do think it is a factor. Why push the envelope if 99% of your userbase can't play it? In the 90s, you could make a game that needed a new graphics card and still get a sizeable portion of the market. These days, if it can't run on an XBOX you might as well not bother.
You might be a special case, but I think it is safe to say that "most" gamers don't have that problem by virtue of the thriving console market.
Oh I'd argue that 1080p makes a big difference. I can't play my 360 at 720p. It looks like a blurry mess. Also I'm one of those people who don't like game framerates below 30. The PC being able to push 1080p at 60fps is a big improvement. Yes, games that push get labelled a tech demo. But Crytek know that Crysis is a benchmarking tool, and it was basically Far Cry except with the US, DPRK, and aliens instead of Hawaiian shirt guy, mercs, and biohorrorterrors.
And Crysis was much more than just Far Cry all over again. The suit, while rather "weak", definitely was a game changer in a lot of ways. I would actually posit that it was one of the earlier "superhero" games.
No moreso than supporting multiple configurations of a PC. In fact, a LOT less.
But if they're releasing to take advantage of higher end hardware, doesn't that preclude running it on the lower end hardware? Or if not preclude, then make the experience inferior? It seems to me that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. I'm guessing they're going to make some compromises to keep things backwards compatible, which makes me wonder if it's worth the effort.
Logically, the variation year ot year won't be TOO huge. Every other year you might notice something big, but year to year would logically just be "a bit more powerful". So it is safe to say that a game made to target the 2014 model will work with the 2013 and probably the 2012, just maybe at lower quality. Eventually there will be a new model that is too powerful/devs who don't care, but by and large you still have the capacity to develop for "next-gen" without screwing over "current-gen".
Well, I think the Ouya failing horribly has more to do with their target demographic and their idiotic insistence on Android than anything else. I am just saying that I think a yearly platform release might be a good thing (and Valve are probalby planning something similar with steamboxes).
I also question it given that we don't even know if the Ouya will really find a decent market. Devs saying they'll support X before X or their game is released is all well and good, but if nobody can find a use for it then they're wasting their time figuring out an upgrade cycle like this. Again it seems like a vote of no confidence in their release in some ways, like they know that people will put it on the shelf like a neglected Nintendo Wii, unless they can convince people to keep buying a new one because hey new stuff!
But, to go into the phone examples. Samsung most assuredly already has the Galaxy S4 design document somewhere. Does that mean they are doing a vote of no confidence on the S3? Not at all. They just understand that there are people who want "the latest technology". And there are people who still have S2s who said "Yeah, I'll wait for the next model" when the S3 came out.