kowenicki said:
what is your problem with it? Im genuinely interested. |
Mostly because it strikes at the heart of one of the most essential qualities of a home console: the promise of stability. When I invest $300 or $400 in a console or portable, it comes with a guarantee that I'll be able to play a set of games for five or six years without needing to upgrade hardware. If I need to spend a significant amount of money every one or two years to keep up with the Joneses, then where is the difference between home consoles and the world of PC gaming?
My other issue, and it might sound anathema to some of my peers on the site, is the rationale behind the idea of an iterative console: that frequent advances in technology are necessary for the evolution of video game software. Personally, I don't buy it. I know console technology is lagging further and further behind PC tech, but, to me, that's fine. We hit a technological sweet spot years ago, and all the advances over the last decade haven't translated to better games.
Now, I'm no Luddite - I understand that video games are intimately connected with technology - but I resist the idea that the industry needs to push violently forward with resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc. I would much rather console manufacturers invest in more modest hardware, and spend several years exploring its potential. For that reason, I'd actually prefer ten year console cycles to two or three year cycles. Although, I admit I'm in the minority on that one.