Alright bro well I also said not YOU just like how you said it to me! So I'm not taking this personally and neither should you!
Well it plays games and runs apps and it cost $200 more than a PS4 when they both came out. I think my point stands.
Well you didn't answer my question. And that is the point, that consoles
Na man, you really don't have to "start". The console generations could've continued being the way they always have been.
Sure, but this is happening and it doesn't negate your already perfectly fine PS4. A PS5 will come out.
To be completely honest, I think there is an underlying causation that has made people and developers feel that it is necessary, but as far as I am concerned as a consumer and video game enthusiast, it is not. The most important thing is making money, right? Which means the most important thing is sales.
Not really. Video game consoles aren't about to be the first set of products that have had incremental improvements, as evident by the horses and muskets in your post.
And a Ps5+, and Ps5++, and a Ps5+++...
Just because that's the way things have traditionally been done, doesn't mean that's the way things should always be done.
Sales weren't easy to achieve for Sony when they first launched the Ps3. And sales were much better than they expected when they launched the Ps4. And the Ps4 has been selling like hotcakes since it launched, so if the generation continued be traditional then Sony would still be making continuous, predictable, and sustainable cash flows like you said.
First off its a lot longer than one year.
It's not just about tradition, it's about how that's naturally how this console industry has been, while other electronic device industries have not. That's why I feel like those industries are a causation to everyone thinking that this is a necessity when really it is not; but the console industry is surrounded by other industries that do it, just making it look weird for NOT doing so - but that doesn't make it a necessary change.
Of course. But that generation lasted 7 years long, and the Ps3 eventually matched the 360 in sales, and the 360 is generally regarded as a success at 85+ million units sold worldwide. And the successors are selling even better. That's an indication to me that there's no need to but a drastic change to the industry.
??? you just showed cash flow in a traditional gen model has not been continuous, predictable, or sustainable. Ps3 lost sony eveything they made on ps2. How is that sustainable or predictable? Wii to wiiu not predictable or sustainable. 360 to xbox one, again not predictable or sustainable.
I thought we established that the reason Sony was fucked with Ps3 was because of the price tag and blu-ray, not because it was part of a console generational cycle. The 360 was there too and it was arguably more successful.
We can think of a number of reasons why the Wii U isn't doing as well as the Wii, but I don't believe it is because it came 6 years after the Wii. The xbone is more successful than the 360, just not as successful as the Ps4, which is very successful. They're all successful and likely would CONTINUE to be successful if the 8th gen remained traditional. If we pretend for a minute that the Ps4K doesn't exist, there would still be no indication that hardware sales would suddenly drop.
I wouldn't use the word 'necessary'. I just think it's a good idea. Give it some time and let Sony make their pitch, you never know, you may come around on this the way I did.
I welcome this iterative stance in the console gaming space for the next few generarions until we get a PS7 powered by quantum computing
Lots of us have become complacent in the way hardware increments happen and how SKUs are released with consoles. While change is scary, its not always a bad thing. I'm optimistic about this but if it fails I dont think it will kill the industry or any particular brand. It will go back to the way it was and we will start seeing giant increases in power and a much higher starting price point to stay relevant over longer periods of time. To keep things at a relatively low introduction cost the consoles will always be way too underpowered out of the gate and IMO require shorter lifespans.
I think with this model we will see a more steady increase in power while keeping the prices relatively low.
You talked about how the traditional gen model was continuous predictable and sustainable. It has been completely unpredictable, and unsustainable for console holders and publishers.
The post quoted by digsccp was actually arguing against a rolling gen.
But why would I buy the PS5 if I have the inkling that PS5.5 would be out in a few years? The entire point of consoles for a lot of people was that you could buy it and be set with the best casual gaming experience on the market for about half a decade. If they're going to keep cutting that in half its just going to push people like me who border the line of interest into the arms of PC gaming.
Its about keeping costs and risk down. As for jumps in tech we are already seeing that. Ps2 to ps3 was probably a 30 to 40 times jump in power, while ps3 to ps4 was only 10. We won't pay above $60 for games, so costs have to be cut and risk reduced. Iterative consoles does both. Publishers can make games that release after a new console model comes out knowing that the insall base will still be there.
Why buy a ps5.5 knowing the ps6 would be out in a few years? Why buy a ps6 knowing the ps6.6 would be out in a few years? And so on. You upgrade when you are ready, or can afford it, or when the games you want stop coming to your current console.
i'll wait till sony gives the official press release to give my final verdict on what i'll do.
oh what basis? Ps4 is much more successful than Sony anticipated, when they had 7 million consoles sold they expected 5, but I don't see how what's unsustainable about it. better hardware sales, and matching or better software sales.
