Do you, as the consumer, care about the specs of a Next-Gen console?

[Xerxes]

Answer Please :)
Either be it the Wii, PS3, Xbox or PC. Do you care about the spec of a product before you buy it?

[Applefiend]

Yes and no. I want a machine that's better than anything I have now, by a long way.

In all honesty the 360/PS3 Spec war is kinda bollocks really. Both good machines. This whole idea that PS3 or 360 has some glaring design fault everyone at Sony/MS has overlooked and only some spotty git in his parents basement has discovered is utter nonsense. And tiresome. Very.

Obviously Nintendo aren't really about giving you a better machine, they're giving you a different machine. As nintendo say, not next generation, new generation.

[OnBake Platinum]

The only numbers I care about is price, battery life, and how many hours I'll be spending playing.

[SuperLuigiBros]

I still dont know the specs of my Gamecube (although I have read about it here and there). The Wii...well obviously the last thing Im going to be worrying about is the graphics. If youre a graphics whore then youll most likely over look the wii. However, I got an awesome computer for my art work, but upgraded the graphics card for games...so yes I do care about the specs of my computer, but only because my computers power wont only benifit my games.

The thing with consoles (not PC) is that you cant upgrade or anything, and all the games will work no matter what. You never need to worry about the console being powerful enough for the games - which is why it doesnt make a difference whether or not you take interest in the specs.

Its just different with computers I guess.

[Hrama]

Being an SC major, I am interested in the specs, but I don't really care. As long as it does as I want to do, I am not going to dig too deeply into raw numbers.

[Boggy700]

Do you care about the spec of a product before you buy it?
No, of course not.
I'm not paying for numbers.

[Zeep]

Here's how I judge graphics:

Step 1. Look at gameplay movies. If it looks good, then it has good graphics.

[Z]

Xerxes, you didn't have to mentio the console. just leave the question as it is in the thread title- about consoles in general. naming them will make others name certain systems and talk about them rather than answering the general question of yes and no and why not.

as for me, specs to anything I buy are very important. after all, I am buying something that is supposed to do something for me. in other words, I am paying for performance. whether that be anything from a watch to a new home theater. before I even ask about the price of similar products I want to buy, I always as "what is the difference between these two?" first.

talking specifically about consoles; they are one of the very few CE that need specific material being made for. if you buy a TV, the makers of that set could close shop the next day. it wouldn't really effect you that much. but consoles need constant support. so there is always a risk that material suppliers for a certain console will jump ship. that is why there are more going on in deciding your new console than possibly any other CE.
so for such purchases, you need to throw that into the equasion as well.

[HolyPaladin]

Specs and performance can make for interesting or heated discussions, but I don't give a crap anymore. Years back, performance and graphics were more significant. Once upon a time, I could get real excited about the visuals we would see from upcoming platforms. While I can still appreciate nice visuals, it really isn't an issue for me any longer. No matter how good a game looks, there's always people complaining that they want to see things pushed even farther, but what we're capable of now more than sufficiently get the job done and improving on subtle graphic details aren't generally making any improvements on my gameplay experience.

Seeing a guard rail dent when you smash into it in a racing game might look cool, but it isn't influencing the gameplay. Watching smoke react to my bullets flying through can look neat, but it isn't influencing the gameplay any. The game still plays the same whether it boasts these visual details or not. I can appreciate these details, but I can live without them if need be; no problem.

As my signature presently mentions, I've lately been playing GTA: Liberty City Stories on my PS2. The game isn't remotely close to being comparable to anything from the PS3 or 360, or the Wii, or even Xbox (1) and GameCube, and I completely don't care, because the important thing is that it's fun to play. Sure, I'd appreciate wicked visuals in the game. If I could wave some magic wand over the game and it was to suddenly have PS3-quality graphics, I'd do it. However, it's not a big deal. The game's still fun even without GameCube-quality graphics.

In short, specs don't matter to me anymore. I like my 360, and I'll get a PS3 as soon as I can afford to, but my fience and I are still ten times as enthusiastic about the Wii as we are about anything from the other two platforms. Having more humble specs and inferior graphics isn't hurting our enthusiasm at all.

[Pro A.]

To a point, it does matter. I wish games would get better, quite frankly, but to see what kind of visual specifications we're getting can be significant on the grounds that it could produce the kinds of games that could have advances in gameplay as well as visual graphics.

[Viper]

On consoles:
No, doesn't matter but still like knowing them for the fact I can understand what they mean. Like a car, the specs don't matter, it's the ability go from point A to be B that matters but it's still nice to know what you got under the hood.

PC:
Yes it matters greatly. Certain programs don't perform very well with low specs so knowing your specs, what they mean and what it can do allows you to judge how well your machine can handle certain programs.

[Z]

Seeing a guard rail dent when you smash into it in a racing game might look cool, but it isn't influencing the gameplay. Watching smoke react to my bullets flying through can look neat, but it isn't influencing the gameplay any. The game still plays the same whether it boasts these visual details or not. I can appreciate these details, but I can live without them if need be; no problem.
but those do add more immersion to the game and make gamers feel more involved and enjoyable. what is the difference then between a racer or shooter on PS1 and PS3? take Fight Night for example, more specs add more to the game (not just graphical polish). you can see far better hit marks on the boxer's face. games like Hitman, you can identify the target based on how it looks. you actually search for 'the guy' by his looks in the game. more power make crashes in Burnout look more extreme. look at the difference between burn out on X2 and on DS. exactly the point.
more power makes more players on screen possible. and so on and so forth.

more power is why we move from generation to generation and get introduced to new game mechanics, more immersion and more options. besides, you can still play the old games you like. so why not keep them with you and continue on evolving?
To a point, it does matter. I wish games would get better, quite frankly, but to see what kind of visual specifications we're getting can be significant on the grounds that it could produce the kinds of games that could have advances in gameplay as well as visual graphics.
exactly my point. could they make a face that showes more suffering and sadness than Heavy Rain in the past? that detail adds a whole lot to the experience of a game. more people are crying in a game, more are enjoying better story telling than movies. Sports games are looking more and more like the real thing. heck, you can mistake a current gen sports game like soccer shown from a zoomed out camera with a real life match if you weren't paying attention. the real crowd cheering, good player animation, etc. make you enjoy the game much more than past gen ever did. small example; now, you can clearly identify the famous sports players you are playing.
On consoles:
No, doesn't matter but still like knowing them for the fact I can understand what they mean. Like a car, the specs don't matter, it's the ability go from point A to be B that matters but it's still nice to know what you got under the hood.
but doesn't specs are what gets you from point A to B? aren't better specs what get you from point A to B better? you don't have o have a Ferrari to drive for 5 minutes, but it sure would make the drive much more pleasent. ;)
PC:
Yes it matters greatly. Certain programs don't perform very well with low specs so knowing your specs, what they mean and what it can do allows you to judge how well your machine can handle certain programs.
that could be included with consoles (especially new ones) as well. more specs make them do more things. a system can have better online functions, multi-tasking (like downloading while playing a game and listening to an MP3 simultaneously), and so on.

game making is one of the most creative art form in my opinion. innovation is not limited to spec (like a painter isn't limited to the amount of paint and canvas space he's got). but more spec give more freedom and allows for more imagination. you can certainly crate far more different paintings using two colors rather than one. sure, you can still paint with one, but how much can you express having 100 colors to pic from? you may not use them all, but other will pic different sets of colors. the more the marrier.

I can still sit down and play PSOne, but I'll be damned if PS3 doesn't go far and beyond what I could ever take out of the little gray box.

on another point, console specs also have a huge importance to those who want certain things from games. one may insult another for paying too much focus on physics or AI, but you are insulting others for not agreeing with you. there are more people out there with more choices than you. we could by the same game and have days of fun with it, but for totally different reasons.

more specs give more choice, which allow for more experiences, thus more people enjoying games. why do you think gaming grew so match in the last decade?

[koten]

I don't understand what the specs say. I can't understand for jack what a FLop is or how much a Terabit is. All I know is that if it makes pictures that are pretty and delivers a fun experience, I got what I paid for.

[Phoenix]

If the specs are so low that they hurt the gameplay experience, yes. But at this point, that can't happen. Even with "weak" consoles like the Wii.

So no.

[venomv]

or how much a Terabit is.

That would be 1024 Gigabits, even though you probably heard the word terrabyte, not terrabit.

[Z]

I don't understand what the specs say. I can't understand for jack what a FLop is or how much a Terabit is. All I know is that if it makes pictures that are pretty and delivers a fun experience, I got what I paid for.
99% of gamers don't understand what the specs mean too. that is why devs make all these demos and announcements. I don't understand the difference in 80 flobs, 1 Ghz, 1 way or 2 way, etc. but I do see what new things are possible in the new games coming out. when grenades scortch the ground and smoke, tree branches and grass sway with the changin wind and bullits bull smoke behind them in CoD3, I know I am getting my new leap. when sidetracks dent and rip off in NFS, I know I am seeing something new. when AI and animation is combined in Indianai Jones, I know I'll be seing something new. when I see sweat, no not 'shiny skin', but actual sweat drops, I know I am playing with a whole new thing. when field grass has motion and it rips and gets cruches in real time and stays that way in EA sports games, I know there will be even more reality and immersion in sports.

so, the more the marrier. I don't know why some would put a limit on how much advancement they want. I say go crazy. the price is the limit. and believe me, if PS3 succeeds, we will see even more robust consoles in the next cycle. full steam ahead.

[Xerxes]

What will separate the PS3 from the Xbox are its games, not its graphics. So if "90-99" percent don't care about specs, then the PS3 is in alot of trouble. I can get the same graphical experience with the 360. I am wondering how many people will buy the PS3 fr graphics? I'm wondering what drives the Sony Playstation 3? Besides Blu-Ray? I still feel unstable with Wii and PS3 because they both have a huge possibility to fail. I'll wait until next year to see which console will do well. I do not want to waste 699+ dollars or eben $250+ for a console that might fail.

To me specs are important especially if they come close like the PS3/360.

[Z]

Xerxes, that kind of post will change your topic into a consoles vs. thread. be more general and give examples rather than comparing systems head to head.
So if "90-99" percent don't care about specs, then the PS3 is in alot of trouble. I can get the same graphical experience with the 360.
not many buy a console purely based on specs. look how pathetic Gizmondo and Zodiac sold dispite having very good specs for handhelds. look how 3DO did, and the examples go on.

you say there isn't that much of a difference or non at all between two sustems in graphics. well then, that crosses out graphics. now balance the rest of the reasons that will help you make a decision, like perhaps, animation, extra apps, online, exclusives, etc. you'll reach a conclusion fairly easily when you know the answer. you'll have to wait to learn more about certain things, but that is another choice you can make; wait to learn more or go with what you have.

To me specs are important especially if they come close like the PS3/360.
specs are important to me for delivering better experiences and possibilities. the more specs the more devs can create.
go with the system you think will give you what you want as a user.

PS. see how I didn't even mention names in my reply? ;)

[Infernal]

Well I dont care about the direct specs, but I care what it can do and thats directly related to the specs. Depends what your asking really. I could care less if its 3.2ghz or 3.6ghz if it can still achieve the exact same things. But if 3.6ghz can achieve more (which it can) then I want it to be able to achieve more. I care about what a console can achieve at its best and in order to do that it needs good specs, what those specs are though, I could care less.

[makeitlookreal]

I care about specifications which is probably very obvious to all of you.

I am trying to not dwell on them quite as much and simply enjoy the gaming aspect much more.

However, when the PS3 is launched I will be eager to see what final specs are released.

[Viper]

The first thing you must ask ourselves is this.

"Have the games gotten better as the specs have increased?"

If like me you answer no, then as far as you're concerned console specs are just hardcore fan marketing tools. If you answered yes, then you're either quite young, new to gaming or have odd tastes compared to the average gamer that has had a valid experience in gaming since the early 80's.

Am I saying we should still be playing in 8 bit? Not at all. Alterations to the gaming industry are what keep it fresh and exciting and in that respect alone is how specs hold the importance. Not in their numeric value alone but in their ability to continue the evolution of gaming. However, a steady progression of spec increases is already natural in the electronic industry and doesn't need to be a forced issue with gaming hardware hence why they don't really matter.

Also to note, if a dev claims he requires X level of specs to make the game fun, he sucks as a developer. Notice how no quality dev has ever said they must have X amount of specs?

[Nexus]

I don't greatly care about console specs, while it is great that consoles are getting more powerful my main concerns are more about the games and thier specs.

[Cofey]

I just want to know I'm getting something for my money - some kind of noticeable advantage over my current systems. Graphical power is one way of achieving that. What Nintendo has done with the DS and is doing with the Wii is another way.

So my answer is no. I don't care what's inside it, as long as there is a good reason for me to upgrade.

[Z]

Viper
...
I agree with you. as with everything else in life, there is always a balance (speaking of balances, it doesn't always have to be 50/50 to be balanced. it depends on other factors than 'splitting' a number ;) ).
"Have the games gotten better as the specs have increased?"
I would say yes. games offer more since the 8 bit era. all games can be concidered 'fun'. but some can afford to add more if they had more to work with. another example is this; concider exact ports of games on different formats. doesn't Madden on PS3 or PC better than the PSOne version in every single way? doesn't that lead to having a better expereince? sure, both are 'fun' but one brings more to enjoy than the other.

Also to note, if a dev claims he requires X level of specs to make the game fun, he sucks as a developer. Notice how no quality dev has ever said they must have X amount of specs?
that is correct- for the most part. we get such claims by not-so-good devs all the time. they depend on visuals and licenses to sell their game. but as David Jaffe (God of War creator) said, "many devs speak about next gen or the next leap, but they never delivered anything special. I don't care about what they say. if a team brought me somethng worthwhile, then they have given me reason to listen to what they have to say about a new generation or future advances and development" (remembering quote off of my head. he said something similar but not to the letter). so listen to what the great devs say. some projects just simply couldn't have been done on previous generations. even if you technically made exicuted the general concept, the game would still not be what it is today. Shadow of the Collosis wouldn't have been near the collosius it is today if it was made for PSOne or for GBA. look at Burnout on DS. who ever allowed for such insulting to a great series name and experience should be staked and set on fire. the platform simply couldn't handle what Burnout stands for. look how excellently it was done on PSP because it had more flexibility (specs).
other types of games imply that need alot to creat the concept. If I wanted a war sim game that makes 2 armies each made of 30000 soldiers fight each other with epic feel and presentation, I couldn't do that on a system with poor specs.

again, most of the times it is only an excuse to cover what they lack in talent 'or budget'. but there are those exceptions.

I just want to know I'm getting something for my money - some kind of noticeable advantage over my current systems.
I think the majority agrees to that. that is one of the reasons why most gamers have only ne system at a time; there isn't that much difference between the choices at hand.
So my answer is no. I don't care what's inside it, as long as there is a good reason for me to upgrade.
but if you upgrade, that means you are adding specs. since you are interested in something new, you are interested in what it brings you. the added things it offers are do to the added specs- among few other things- that a new system is made for. in other words, you are interested in specs. it is just that you point out that the difference between all the new spec system may not be a factor for you.

just like the previous poster that said specs are important, but not in the case of Rev. I think he is saying the same thing as you; specs are a factor/important but the difference between the coming choices isn't large enough to make a decision based on it.

[Viper]

I think a better question might be, "Are top of the line specs important?"

[Xerxes]

I was just trying to see if specs really mattered in delivering great games and drawing new and innovative developers to the console.

This gen I bought a PS2 because of the games it had. Gamecube had really repetitive games such as Mario and Xbox had mostly FPS. Now PS3 and 360 (no offense) now have alot of repetitive FPS games and everything is getting ported also the 360 is just getting ports from PC because of how easy it is to port it using Direct 9 ect. The Wii (no offense) has the same games with an added quirk. I have read that the PS3 cost 720 dollars to make, Wii cost 120 dollars to make and the 360 cost 400 dollars to make. I'll wait until next year until something exiting happens, until then I will probraly hold off. There are no games that exite me for the 360, Wii, or PS3 as of this year. :(


On the optimistic side of this the PS3, Xbox, and Wii do have exclusive games. Red steel (Wii), Gears of War (360), Assassin's Creed (PS3) are some of the best exclusive games I have seen. Until thoes games come out, Ill hold off. :)

[venomv]

I think the 360 costs well more then $400 to make, and I find it extremely unlikly the Wii costs $120, it will probably be at about break-even point at launch.

[Phoenix]

Mario is repetative?

=-o

[Viper]

I have read that the PS3 cost 720 dollars to make, Wii cost 120 dollars to make and the 360 cost 400 dollars to make.

X360 is ~$525.00 to manufacture. This is official.

PS3 costs between $600.00 and $900.00 depending on the analyst that is speculating. Nothing official yet.

Wii is ~$200.00 - $250.00 as N has noted it will sell for less than $250.00 and will sell for a very tiny loss.

[Z]

I think a better question might be, "Are top of the line specs important?"
that would be a better way to put it. in that case, no.

of course, that marginal difference 'no' in specs will depend on your own view as a user.:angel:

[DLazare91]

i said no.

as long as it runs good games that are a decent graphical upgrade than the last gen im good.

[Coded-Dude]

i said yes; having THE top end specs is not necessarily whats improtant, as the systems are so close it almost irrelevant(in particular scenarios). However, HW add-ons are specs and are very impotant, as they are feature-adds. Like built in WiFi, or Blue-Tooth, and even Surround Sound. Not that any one of those features make one system better than the other, its just that the "specs" I look are are what determine which system I will buy, and more often then not, these specs are hardware features.