As gamers, we are always anxious and eager to hear news regarding new technology in the world of video gaming.  THQ on the other hand is not.  In an interview with Eurogamer, THQ’s Danny Bilson said that new consoles “would be horrible”.

“It would be horrible, But I think they all know our model’s broken anyway.

“It still costs us a fortune to make games on this platform. If they’re going to up the scale, up the art, up the content, I don’t know how to make that and sell it to anybody for under $100 a game. Who wants to do that? It’s bad for everybody.”

We can’t really argue that point.  Who really wants to pay over $100 for a standard version of a video game in store and then have to shell out more money for DLC that is often put out a month or two after the game releases.

Bilson further stated that “Stability of technology allows for the fruition and the growth of creative,

“We’re not having to invest all of our focus, and, oh my god, how are we going to deal with that new technology? We understand it. We still have guys trying to squeeze it to do cooler stuff, but it puts the weight of the mission under creative, which ultimately should get us more interesting and more creative stuff.

“That’s the trick. We’re not going to get beat by another hardware upgrade like every five years like it was before. There will be little things. It’s up to us to compete in graphics and creativity. Sometimes I hope good creativity and style will be able to be more important. It is more important.”

What do you think Gamercide?  Is this a case of looking out for everybody including gamers or do you believe that there are underlying worries about bigger developers such as EA?

via Eurogamer

View the full article

What I don't understand is how can PC games continually get better and better, and PCs are MORE expensive to own/maintain, and yet the games released for them are generally CHEAPER to purchase than a console game?

That is what is completely bass-ackwards about the whole thing to me.

More Importantly, when you program for pc you have to have a wide enough basis to run on as many pc set ups as possible. When you program for consoles, you know EXACTLY what all the specs are.

More Importantly, when you program for pc you have to have a wide enough basis to run on as many pc set ups as possible. When you program for consoles, you know EXACTLY what all the specs are.

True, but the specs and the -programming- necessary to work with each individual platform's OS can be a real b**ch to work with. A PC only needs to function (in most cases) for the Windows kernel and while yes : I'm making a generalized over-simplified statement, for PC's you have 1 basic "language" you need to write for. (Since most games are Windows based) The hardware can be upgraded in a PC to match the games requirements to perform. The language is the key.

For consoles, if you're going to go cross platform, you need to make that game work with whatever "language" that platform uses. Sometimes, that unique language ham-strings developers. They need time to learn it, speak it "fluently". The more they can, the better the graphics/performance. Looks at what early PS2 games were like compaired to those that came out towards the end of its "life-cycle". It's day and night.

/em putsonflameretardantsuit

I don't mind waiting for new consoles. The last generation still gets the job done and I agree the developers have more time to spend on creativity then worrying about making the damn game work. Newer tech is inevitable, but everyone knows you see the best games later in a consoles life.

In Australia we pay $100-$120 for a standard edition. We cope.

I can see what they mean though. Don't want more game franchises dumbing down to entertain the masses and make profit at the expense of complexity.