By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Veknoid_Outcast on 25 May 2016
Edit Thread
setsunatenshi said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

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.

Don't you see the stability of being able to play your games on the current console that you can still own for the next 5/6 years, but if by any chance you decide to upgrade, you won't need to sell or store your entire collection just to start from 0 all over again? how about the stability for developers to create a game not having to worry if there will be a generation transition in mid development? i mean... come on, just because a new version of the console exists it doesn't mean you need to go and pick it up. Since you're not worried about better resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc... why would you 'have' to buy the new version?

I keep hearing this common complain, from 1 side it's said they don't want to upgrade because it's pointless to have better image quality, but on the other side just because the same game is available in better quality they feel forced to buy it.

I'm just looking for a little bit of consistency here.

Sorry, I don't follow. Where is the inconsistency?