on 06 September 2012
The purpose of a new console is to bring gamers to put dollars on the table. Point is this: at some point most gamers have a device to game on. The sales of the old-gen machines dwindle in result. The console-manufacturer starts a new gen to force the people to pay for a new machine. Naturally people need at least an perceived value from the new machine, to consider to buy it. So the console-manufacturer try to sell new features. That may be advances in graphics, controls, network-capabilities or the like. But the best and most used argument is: if you want to play the new Mario/Final Fantasy/Halo/God of War/Tekken/whatever you have to buy the new machine.
And, what is with PS2? Your argument basically says that the PS2 is gen 5 and gen 6 was won by the Xbox.
@bold. That can all be done on the same console. It's purely about marketing if technical upgrades are totally out of the picture.
If a competitor offers the updates on the same console, doesn't that invalidate the need for a brand new console, unless there's some other considerable upgrade that requires a new machine (such as a performance upgrade due to better computer components)? So a console in your perspective is purely artificial and has no reason of being, since a competitor in that case could easy cut over your offering by making it an add-on and saving people the need to buy a whole new console.
This basically puts the nail in the coffin.
People already paid for the old-gen-console and don't buy another one (except the first breaks). So no, I can't follow your argumentation.
But anyways, fine, we have different definitions of gen. I accept that. Your definition says the XBOX won gen 6. Fine, keep your opinion. I don't see any reason to fight it, but for me PS2 won gen 6 not gen 5.
3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)
my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021
10 years greatest game event!
bets: [peak year] [+], , , ,