| Roronaa_chan said: You wrote nothing wrong. Yet all of it is "wrong". The only way I can see someone reading that and nodding in agreement is if they're shareholders or a "suit". And a certain unnamed group of people. Dunno about you but I don't work in this industry and am merely a consumer. As a consumer, reading all that makes me grimace with disdain, there are no advantages whatsoever. The only people who stand to gain anything from this are those who want our sweet sweet money while a) taking as less risk as possible and b) giving back to you as less as possible. Which is fine (great) for them; no good for us. |
I get exactly what you mean. But even as consumers we have to think about our industry.
Let's take this for instance. Looking at cost of game development.
PS4 = 1080p@30fps $60M
PS5 = 4k@30fps $120M
PS45 = 1080p@30fps/4k@30fps $130M
Made up numbers, but just an example. Something consumers ingire is that these games cost money moent to make. And the more powerful the hardware, the more powerful the assets, the bigger and more complex the game world.... the more money the games cost to make. This is an indisputable fact.
As is, say the average cost of a AAA PS4 game is $60M. When we get to the PS5 that average cost becomes maybe $120M. That ultimately translates to fewer games for consumers cause fewer companies can foot that kinda bill without blinking. Yet they are selling to about the same number of consumers.
But if we have an evolutionary console, it means that while the cost of the game goes up a bit from what it's PS5 would have been, the game still supports the previous console. So it means there is a significantly wider market to sell the game to. Which translates to less risk and ultimately more games
